openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Lynch <>
Subject Re: Umbrella projects
Date Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:59:48 GMT
On 12 September 2011 13:41, Joe Schaefer <> wrote:

> Well binaries do not require votes, they
> are considered a "courtesy service" of the
> project.  In any case there is sufficient
> precedent which disagrees with Ross's opinion
> that all PPMC votes must take place here that
> his position could be reasonably contested
> should a valid need arise.

I'm looking at this more from a "let's all understand a common way to work"
rather than this is to be enshrined in law. If we can agree on a simple
method even if it is not binding, simply a code of practice so communication
works effectively, it just makes cooperative working easier. Simple example,
business-wise we have partners rather than trying to do everything
ourselves. We have a simple written agreement with those partners so we all
know the way things should work and we can scale. I doubt we will ever need
to enforce the agreement in a court of law as we all agree. It's simply a
record with a fall back position in case. It enables us to have national and
international reach from a small set of core resources. Seems to me that
that is the same issue OOo presents to Apache.

> >From: Simon Phipps <>
> >To:
> >Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 8:31 AM
> >Subject: Re: Umbrella projects
> >
> >[Recombining the thread]
> >
> >On 12 Sep 2011, at 12:43, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >
> >> On 12 September 2011 12:34, Simon Phipps <> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 12 Sep 2011, at 10:55, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> We need to manage this carefully. A Japanes language list to ensure
> >>>> non-English speaking people are able to participate in the project is
> >>>> fine. A Japanese language list for creating a different version of OOo
> >>>> for the Japanese market is not fine.
> >>>
> >>> The reality is likely to be somewhere in-between. For example, the
> PT-BR localisation of OOo was the subject of extensive discussion in
> Portuguese about exactly how to translate various aspects of the UI, none of
> which would be of great relevance to English-speakers but which was still
> development discussion. The same would be likely to apply to every locale.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Let me clarify "different version" I meant significantly different,
> >> not just a translation.
> >
> >You say "just a translation" but the debate on the PT-BR version led to
> two competing releases for a time, with an impact on the community there
> which lingers to this day. Localisation of a consumer application is never
> "just a translation" as might happen to the strings in a server project;
> substantial end-user decisions are debated, negotiated and agreed by
> thoughtful developers.
> >
> >/The/ key reason for the success of is that there exists a
> large, global community of groups of localisers who each act in autonomy or
> semi-autonomy to create the release for each locale. Your message is a
> wake-up call that we need to put a lot more thought into how the project
> will approach them, especially if they will need to be separate projects in
> order to retain their locale-specific autonomy.
> >
> >On 12 Sep 2011, at 12:44, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >
> >> On 12 September 2011 11:50, Ian Lynch <> wrote:
> >>> If there is to be a NL build of the AOO product to be
> >>> released, presumably that build will take place at Apache? Or could it
> take
> >>> place elsewhere but only be formally released by Apache?
> >>
> >> It depends on what you mean by "takes place". Anyone can build
> >> anything they want, wherever they want. However a formal release of an
> >> Apache project must receive 3 binding +1's. The vote to get those
> >> votes *must* be carried out here on the official dev list (this one).
> >
> >So the release of (for example:) a new PT-BR binary needs three binding
> +1s on this (English-speaking) list?
> >
> >S.
> >
> >


Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message