incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
Date Thu, 07 Jun 2012 23:08:10 GMT

On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <>wrote:
>> +1 on this discussion so far.
>> I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
>> Also, the anonymous contribution to pootle is a no-no.
>> - Dennis
>> PS: Changing to the [DISCUSS] that is called for and to have it be visible.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rob Weir []
>> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 09:41
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: *DRAFT FINAL* June board report
>> 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 <>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr <>
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working
>> pootle
>>>>>>>>> currently requires committership, which results in translators
>> having having
>>>>>>>>> to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list.
>> 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
>>>>>>> allows registration (by email verification) of new users and
>> 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
>>>>>>> Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and hope
that we
>> can
>>>>>>> reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together with
>> on
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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
>> translations.
>> 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
>> standpoint.
>> For example, those who contribute to Pootle, anonymously, see their
>> contributions marked as being from "nobody" in the UI:
>> Isn't that rather insulting?
> [reposted since I didn't see this topic change]
> yes, it is...I thought Juergen was suggesting that some special submission
> access if you will be granted to the Pootle server.

As in we would like to be able to allow people with an iCLA on file to register for access
to the pootle server.

We can call these people "invited translators"

Should we add a line to the podling report - for the IPMC and board's attention?


>> 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
>> address.
>> -Rob
> What I see here are some "non-standard" submissions in the Apache sense
> emerging in OpenOffice. I was alluding to this in a post I made the other
> day, but didn't specify anything. Using the Pootle server is a perfect
> example of such a case.
> Maybe we can take this up with the Board after graduation? -- and see what
> can be done. I can't imagine that some new methods can't be enacted.
>>> 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
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
> "Everything will be all right in the end...
>      if it's not all right then it's not the end. "
>             -- Sonny, "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel"

View raw message