>________________________________ >From: Ross Gardler <[email protected]> >To: [email protected]; Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> >Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 9:05 AM >Subject: Re: Umbrella projects > >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.
Correct, see http://www.apache.org/dev/release.htmll#what-must-every-release-contain All "released" binaries must be buildable from voted-upon source packages. > >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.] Traditionally it depends on the scope of the decision. Subprojects at the ASF are free to hold binding votes on their sublists, presuming the decision only affects that subproject. > >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 > > >
