On 12 September 2011 13:41, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > Well binaries do not require votes, they > are considered a "courtesy service" of the > project.
For clarity: An *official* release requires a vote. A binary snapshot release (for example) does not. Usually an official release (which is a source release) is accompanied by a binary release that is a courtesy as Joe says. I think what Joe means here (apologies if I am misrepresenting you Joe) is that if, for example, Apache OO.o 3.4 were released today then a native language *binary* release based on that code could be made tomorrow without a vote. The question then is how much control over native language versions does the PPMC want and at what point is the native language version no longer considered to be a version of Apache OO.o but instead it is a downstream modification of Apache OO.o. It's for the PPMC to decide that. > 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 think my position has been morphed by this thread. My comments are not *only* about native language sub-groups, I merely used a native language group as the example. I am *not* saying that native language releases are a problem. I am *not* saying that native language projects are *automatically* sub-projects that might lead to OO.o being an umbrella of the kind the ASF does not like. What I *am* saying is that we need to be aware of how much autonomy sub-lists have. Those sub-lists may, or may not be, about native language versions. My mail is, as Simon says an attempt to sound "a wake-up call that we need to put a lot more thought into how the project will approach [semi-auomonous groups]" [Finally, for the record, I disagree that project decisions (requiring a vote) can be taken anywhere but here.] Ross > > > > >>________________________________ >>From: Simon Phipps <[email protected]> >>To: [email protected] >>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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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. >> >> -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
