On 12 September 2011 13:41, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> 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 <si...@webmink.com> > >To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > >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 <si...@webmink.com> 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 OpenOffice.org 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 <ianrly...@gmail.com> 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. > > > > > -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
