Re: gnome-cat mailing list request
Il giorno gio, 06/07/2006 alle 15.39 +0200, Toni Hermoso Pulido ha scritto: Well, Jordi Mallach has already answered you. You can easily check in Internet there are already many Catalan-speaking specific communities with their own mailing list, apart from those ones actually related to translation tasks. For example, let's say, debian-users-catalan. Since I have known GNOME, one of the main goals was to make users comfortable, and one of the most uncomfortable imaginable things for a person is to have to communicate in a language they do not master or which is not their mother tongue. The Catalan users have a different culture, a different language, have people with whom they can communicate in it, have GNOME translated into it: it is somewhat their right to have a mailing list in which they can use it freely. I will be more than happy to set it up. Cheers, -- Guilherme de S. Pastore fatalerror (with his sysadmin hat on) -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: wgo revamp timeline (proposal)
quote who=Guilherme de S. Pastore Il giorno gio, 06/07/2006 alle 14.02 +0200, Quim Gil ha scritto: July 26th: End of www.gnome.org revamp planning (aka feature freeze). Policies, licensing and wgo platform (CMS) agreed. *Please* not drupal. I think a worthwhile rule for this entire process should be: No criticism without solution. So please explain your point of view so it can be taken seriously, and offer a solution to go with it so you're also moving things forward. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2007: Sydney, Australia http://lca2007.linux.org.au/ I think a lot of the basis of the open source movement comes from procrastinating students. - Andrew Tridgell -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
GUADEC 2006 pictures
Hi everyone!, a link to GUADEC 2006 pictures has been added to GUADEC 2006 press room: http://guadec.org/GUADEC2006/PressRoom If you upload pictures of GUADEC 2006 to flickr, please tag them with guadec2006. If you upload pictures of GUADEC 2006 to any internet public repository, please let me know to add the link to the press room. Thank you!, javivázquez -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: wgo revamp timeline (proposal)
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 11:25 -0400, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote: Il giorno sab, 08/07/2006 alle 00.06 +1000, Jeff Waugh ha scritto: I think a worthwhile rule for this entire process should be: No criticism without solution. So please explain your point of view so it can be taken seriously, and offer a solution to go with it so you're also moving things forward. Any strong reason that MediaWiki doesn't work? behdad I am not much into this CMS thing, so I regret not being able to suggest something absolutely certain of its capabilities and advantages. However, I've already seen and faced all kinds of problems with drupal, from security to upgradability issues, which IMHO do not make it the best option to set the infrastructure of a website we want to keep around for long on. And I did not make it clearer because I've already exposed this concern to qgil in the process of setting up drupal for guadec.org. Cheers, -- Guilherme de S. Pastore fatalerror -- behdad http://behdad.org/ Commandment Three says Do Not Kill, Amendment Two says Blood Will Spill -- Dan Bern, New American Language -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Not for me and maybe a lot of other people
quote who=[EMAIL PROTECTED] I get the designated 'stable' garnome release 2.14 and tried to get it to work. It did not. Before replying to the rest of your mail, it's worth pointing out that using GARNOME is not for the light-hearted - it is really designed for testers and developers of GNOME who are pretty wired in to what's going on in GNOME plus ready and willing to handle breakage as it comes. Good to keep that in mind. I'd recommend trying GNOME as provided by one of our awesome distributors. 1. Is the current approach not one of a bloated system? 2.6GB and counting GARNOME builds with full debugging symbols, so testers can provide useful bug reports when things go wrong. GNOME as installed by a distributor is much smaller (for example, Ubuntu ships a complete desktop with more than just GNOME on a single install CD). 2. If I don't need connection to M$ Exchange why would must I be forced to build that into GNOME? Is that not like M$'s approach with the IE controversy of a few years back? Not sure why it would be like Microsoft abusing their monopoly with IE, but building the evolution-exchange tarball is entirely optional. 3. Although I used glasses to read, I don't need a magnifier and/or Braille! You might not need them, and you can choose to not build them, but these are crucial features for visual/motor-impaired users, and included in GARNOME so testers can make sure they are working correctly. 4. Do you know how difficult it is to find a solution to a compilation problem and then you read statements which sound like Take it or leave it That is the first policy of M$. garnome-list is extremely helpful, particularly for those who are getting involved in testing GNOME. In general, users shouldn't need to build GNOME, so it's not something we really optimise our support for. 5. Although English is not my language of choice, I don't want all of the rest, like spanish, french, mandarin, etc. Why not give one the option at the beginning to select the ones you want? I don't build on my machine for the world. You can do that. :-) Well I gave you my five cents. Enjoy the process, but you are going to have trouble to market GNOME as a viable alternative if the 'stable' version fails to compile. People who just want to get their work done, and don't really care about computers don't compile software - least of all their entire desktop and platform stack! Worth keeping in mind that this is not a major use case for mass adoption of Open Source or Free Software. :-) Thanks, - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2007: Sydney, Australia http://lca2007.linux.org.au/ Women are too irrational to be crazed killers anyway. - Angus Lees -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: wgo revamp timeline (proposal)
On 7/7/06, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 11:25 -0400, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote: Il giorno sab, 08/07/2006 alle 00.06 +1000, Jeff Waugh ha scritto: I think a worthwhile rule for this entire process should be: No criticism without solution. So please explain your point of view so it can be taken seriously, and offer a solution to go with it so you're also moving things forward. Any strong reason that MediaWiki doesn't work? I only look at this from the i18n/l10n perspective, so please bear with me: From my understanding at looking at the MediaWiki source code, MediaWiki supports localization, but with the concept of one language per installation. I.e. if we want to have the web site translated into 42 languages, we need to maintain 42 separate MediaWiki installations and databases. This may be manageable for a site like wikipedia.org, but probably not for www.gnome.org. Ideally, there should be a minimum of efforts required to translate www.gnome.org -- if translating or enabling a particular translation requires sysadmin intervention, we simply won't have much (current) translated content at all. Christian -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: [Fwd: Exhibitor Magazine Honors LinuxWorld San Francisco 2005 for its Attendee Traffic Density]
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 12:20:17PM +0100, Paul Cooper wrote: As an aside - is anyone in Portland organising a booth for OSCON (because I can help out if needed). I'm not sure if we have time to set up a booth. I can put you in touch with the people in O'Reilly if you want to set up a GNOME booth at the conference. There might be time, I don't know. I've been doing the OSCON booth for the past three years. Personally, it's probably more effective to walk around with a shoulder bag filled with GNOME CD's and schmooze at OSCON which is really the kind of conference where I find booths to be of limited effectiveness. sri -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: wgo revamp timeline (proposal)
(Please keep marketing-list cc:ed) On 7/7/06, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 19:26 +0200, Christian Rose wrote: On 7/7/06, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 11:25 -0400, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote: Il giorno sab, 08/07/2006 alle 00.06 +1000, Jeff Waugh ha scritto: I think a worthwhile rule for this entire process should be: No criticism without solution. So please explain your point of view so it can be taken seriously, and offer a solution to go with it so you're also moving things forward. Any strong reason that MediaWiki doesn't work? I only look at this from the i18n/l10n perspective, so please bear with me: From my understanding at looking at the MediaWiki source code, MediaWiki supports localization, but with the concept of one language per installation. I.e. if we want to have the web site translated into 42 languages, we need to maintain 42 separate MediaWiki installations and databases. This may be manageable for a site like wikipedia.org, but probably not for www.gnome.org. The one-per-installation locale is only relevant for the UI of the wiki, not the contents. So, while the Edit button will have the same English text in all pages, the content can be in almost any language without need for any further tweaks. There are certainly issues with dates, etc. But I'm not sure they obviously rule this greatly supported option out. Ok. I haven't looked too closely at the database scheme, so I didn't know this. Still, I think it may not be trivial to integrate our current localization efforts and localization process with a MediaWiki. Ideally, there should be a minimum of efforts required to translate www.gnome.org -- if translating or enabling a particular translation requires sysadmin intervention, we simply won't have much (current) translated content at all. Honestly I'm not really sure having translated website is such a good idea. What I think is good though is having per-language corners, better clearly separated through the URL (fa.gnome.org or gnome.org/fa for example. The latter is easier.) and let the language team publish their own content there, instead of trying to catch up translations of a moving target. Of course, things like press releases or announcements are and will be translated. We've reiterated this localized content discussion over and over for several years, and the consensus has always been that official content on www.gnome.org should have translations, while localized content provided by local communities belong on other local community sites. There are any number of reasons for this decision. The most recent time this was reiterated was on GUADEC. Is there something in particular about this decision that you dislike? Christian -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: wgo revamp timeline (proposal)
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 21:28 +0200, Christian Rose wrote: (Please keep marketing-list cc:ed) /me blames evo Ideally, there should be a minimum of efforts required to translate www.gnome.org -- if translating or enabling a particular translation requires sysadmin intervention, we simply won't have much (current) translated content at all. Honestly I'm not really sure having translated website is such a good idea. What I think is good though is having per-language corners, better clearly separated through the URL (fa.gnome.org or gnome.org/fa for example. The latter is easier.) and let the language team publish their own content there, instead of trying to catch up translations of a moving target. Of course, things like press releases or announcements are and will be translated. We've reiterated this localized content discussion over and over for several years, and the consensus has always been that official content on www.gnome.org should have translations, while localized content provided by local communities belong on other local community sites. There are any number of reasons for this decision. The most recent time this was reiterated was on GUADEC. Understood. Is there something in particular about this decision that you dislike? My only problem is that a local community cannot easily register and host a domain name without a single point-of-failure/bottleneck, so, as long as we are offering communities some local space, I'm fine with that. Christian -- behdad http://behdad.org/ Commandment Three says Do Not Kill, Amendment Two says Blood Will Spill -- Dan Bern, New American Language -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: wgo revamp timeline (proposal)
On 7/7/06, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've reiterated this localized content discussion over and over for several years, and the consensus has always been that official content on www.gnome.org should have translations, while localized content provided by local communities belong on other local community sites. There are any number of reasons for this decision. The most recent time this was reiterated was on GUADEC. Understood. Is there something in particular about this decision that you dislike? My only problem is that a local community cannot easily register and host a domain name without a single point-of-failure/bottleneck, so, as long as we are offering communities some local space, I'm fine with that. Good point, but I really feel that is an orthogonal problem to the localization of the actual (and official) www.gnome.org content. Christian -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: wgo revamp timeline (proposal)
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 12:25 -0300, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote: However, I've already seen and faced all kinds of problems with drupal, from security to upgradability issues Could you be more specific about these problems? The ones I remember were not caused directly by Drupal but by a) lack of sysadmin resources or skills within the members of the GUADEC team with the permissions needed. b) GNOME permission policies having to satisfy the security of several tools, services, priorities and servers. c) outdated versions of several packages affecting the functioning of Drupal. d) lack of coordination between the GUADEC team and the Sysadmin team. We also tried an upgrade of a production site when Drupal 4.7 was still beta and without testing first on a development server. It didn't work: our fault. I bet now that 4.7 is more than stable the upgrade would be a child's game. I might be missing problems, please detail those that were caused by the Drupal code, not by we humans. , which IMHO do not make it the best option to set the infrastructure of a website we want to keep around for long on. Not having names for better alternatives doesn't help, as Jeff has pointed. :) You opinion as GNOME sysadmin is very important. Please make a list of requirements the tool(s) to be used should match and we will make sure the CMS(s) selected accomplish them. And I did not make it clearer because I've already exposed this concern to qgil in the process of setting up drupal for guadec.org. As said, I don't think the problems were caused by Drupal but about the GNOME/GUADEC human context and the server infrastructure. However, many have pointed that one of the keys of the GUADEC 2006 success was the website. With all the problems we have got, the result seems to be much more satisfactory than the results obtained with the current wgo platform. About Drupal vs MediaWiki vs etc, there is not much point discussing tools before agreeing requirements. By July 17th Greg Nagy needs to come up with a list of requirements for the wgo platform (CMS). Help him with the requirements if you want to help selecting the most appropriate tool(s). If you can't stop discussing the CMS to be chosen anyways, don't forget that after long debates Drupal is still the fittest candidate. If you think Tool X is better please explain why, the more detailed your comments are the most useful they will be. About i18n, there was a long discussion in gnome-web-list that got into quite detailed aspects back in December05-February06 (i.e. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-web-list/2006-January/msg00030.html ). John Hwang (aka tavon) is in charge of pushing the i18n policies draft by August 9th. If you want to get i18n right in wgo please help him summarizing what has been discussed and getting a good list of requirements. We don't have much time to discuss. If you want to help effectively it is recommended to a) concentrate your contributions in one topic until it is solved and b) try not to repeat discussions already held in the past if you don't bring new ingredients. -- Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org | http://guadec.org signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
