incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: *DRAFT FINAL* June board report
Date Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:40:37 GMT
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
<> wrote:
> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt <> wrote:
>>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt <>
>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr <> wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working with
>>>>>>> currently requires committership, which results in translators
having having
>>>>>>> to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list. The
board needs to
>>>>>>> decide if this short-circuiting of the process is desirable or
not and what
>>>>>>> the alternatives are.
>>>>>> No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to the project
to define its
>>>>>> own expectations of committers.
>>>>> it's a very bad limitation. I would prefer a user management which
>>>>> allows registration (by email verification) of new users and where new
>>>>> users agree to contribute under the Apache license. Maybe combined with
>>>>> an iCLA but not necessarily require to be committer.
>>>>> But I am not sure if something like that would be possible at all.
>>>>> Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and hope that we
>>>>> reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together with them
>>>>> a fast-track.
>>>> I agree that the limitation suboptimal.
>>>> I suggest someone take this up with legal-discuss@ If legal@ feel able
>>>> to approve a more relaxed approach to iCLAs for access to Pootle then
>>>> infra@ can be asked to find a technical solution.
>>> I agree and thanks to remind me that I should take the appropriate
>>> action to address things like that ;-)
>> Careful with the "I" - madness lies that way ;-)
>> This is the perfect opportunity for someone lurking here to make an
>> early and potentially very significant contribution. Shepherding these
>> kinds of actions takes time away from those embedded in the coding.
>> It's a good way to earn merit while you figure out where to contribute
>> to the project. If someone like that is reading but not sure how to
>> proceed I'm sure others will help guide you.
> I agree but the idea is not really new and nothing happened so far ;-)
> Thinking more about it I would like to discuss a new term "Apache
> contributor" where users can register for an user account by accepting
> that all their contributions are under ALv2. The verification can be by
> email verification and the iCLA can be required as well (details have to
> be defined). With such accounts people would get access to more pubic
> wikis (like our user wiki), tools like Pootle, bugzilla etc.

The "contributor" role at Apache already handles this.  A contributor
can already register in Bugzilla, post patches, register in the wiki,
contribute documentation, etc.

What a contributor cannot do is directly modify the product code in
SVN.  So they are in RTC mode with respect to product code, including

I think the disconnect here is we only have an anonymous method for
contributors to add translations to Pootle.  I can see the
justification for requiring non-committers to submit translations as
patches in BZ or via suggestions in Pootle.  But the anonymous part of
this is completely wrong, both from community and from legal

For example, those who contribute to Pootle, anonymously, see their
contributions marked as being from "nobody" in the UI:

Isn't that rather insulting?

It also makes it very difficult for the PMC to do their job, since we
cannot effectively track top contributors and nominate them for
committership of the work is all by "nobody".

>From legal perspective, we're failing to track where our contributions
are coming from.  We're losing the provenance of the translations by
not associating translation contributions with a user ID/email


> The difference between contributors and committers would be that only
> committers get the email address.
> I think that a such lightweight user could be useful and the license
> question of their contributions would be clear form the beginning.
> Juergen

View raw message