openoffice-l10n mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From janI <j...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Proposal: communications/workflow for new languages
Date Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:57:29 GMT
On 24 February 2013 18:47, Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org> wrote:

> On 22/02/2013 Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> For example:
>> 1) Point new volunteers to BZ from the start.  ...
>> 3) When a new volunteer wants to join, we can point them to the BZ
>> issue.  The files are there, as well as the names of the other
>> volunteers.  Adding a comment to the BZ issue causes it to be sent to
>> all volunteers working on that language.
>>
>
> This would be the main advantage. Be it Bugzilla or the wiki, we
> definitely need something better than the current system (which is, more or
> less: I keep a list of volunteers for each language and try to connect
> them, very often without any clue if there is progress or not; and this
> stops new volunteers from being immediately active).
>
> Problems we face, and possible solutions:
>
> A) Technical issues: not all volunteers are able to deal with a .tar.bz2
> archive of 240 PO files. Solution: send volunteers to Pootle (with PO files
> available for download for those who prefer it)
>
> B) Bootstrap issues: volunteers still need to wait that we make PO files
> available; in most cases this only takes a few days, but Catalan, for
> example, has been pending for weeks. Solution: have all PO files
> immediately ready (being done in Jan's new l10n process).
>
> C) Coordinating issues: volunteers need a collaboration space; currently
> they rely on private mail, but this makes it impossible to follow progress
> and to properly add new volunteers. Solutions: Bugzilla is an option,
> Mwiki's "watch this page" is another one, even a forum topic will do, and
> at the extreme a dedicated mailing list, but in all cases we need that
> volunteers register on a new system; if we can create an account for them,
> this would become even more user-friendly. Bugzilla has a file size
> limitation that currently prevents it from being really useful, since PO
> files are too big to be attached there. It is true that our internal
> workflow uses Bugzilla for PO files, but the reality is that in most cases,
> as you can see, PO files were sent by e-mail to either me or Juergen and we
> added them to Bugzilla (as links). Anyway, it is OK for me to start
> directing volunteers from March 1st to a new tool, the one we agree upon.
> No clear preference between Bugzilla and Mwiki for me.
>
> D) Licensing issues: if we rely more on Pootle, we must find a way to have
> all contributions clearly licensed (no ICLA). Solution: my preference would
> be: make Apache License 2 a mandatory registration requirement; anonymous
> users cannot do anything (not even suggestions); registered users can do
> both suggestions and approvals (let's try and be open); a committer takes
> care of review (when applicable) and committing to sources. If I understand
> correctly, Jan can make something like this possible, and Jan if you need
> any changes to the existing policy/configuration just ask.
>

Yes, I can get this done (with the help of infra). I would however prefer
we required a ICLA (not committer status) to allow editing on pootle, this
is not a big administration, and we have a bit more hold on who edits.

May I politely suggest that we put the alv2 licence in all PO files (this
can be done today) then there are no doubt about licensing independent of
toolset.

jan I.

>
> In the short term, it's enough to get C done.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>

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