Why don't we ask them their preference (keeping dev@ in the loop as well) --David
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Apr 26, 2013, at 11:22 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > >>>> As such - I do not see a material difference in how the projects that >>>> are already using translate.a.o and how we function. >>>> >>> >>> Do we bring it up to legal-discuss ? I am happy to do so. >>> >> >> What question would we ask? >> I see two possible questions, let me know if that isn't the case. >> >> If the question is 'Is accepting contributions from a plethora of >> contributors to a project specific instance an acceptable way of doing >> business' I think the answer is obvious that translate.a.o does >> exactly that mechanism and there seem to be no issues from a process >> standpoint. >> >> If the question is 'Can the Transifex Apache CloudStack l10n projects >> serve as an official contribution point' - I personally am comfortable >> saying that the message is currently clear that we treat them as >> official. I also don't see a problem with doing so. Is this a point of >> contention with anyone else? Is there a problem there that I am not >> seeing? >> >> Is there another question? > > I am fine with your statements and have no questions for legal-discuss. > > I was merely bringing it up in the open to make sure people knew about it. > > The only issue left IMHO is how we ack the authors of translations in git ? > > -sebastien >
