On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Ian Lynch <ianrly...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12 September 2011 15:42, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> >> >> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >> >> Cc: >> >> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 9:58 AM >> >> Subject: Re: Umbrella projects >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12 Sep 2011, at 14:12, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> >> >>> It would be useful if you explained what you meant by "autonomy" >> >> so it >> >>> is clear about what you are talking about. >> >> >> >> "Autonomy" in the case of a localisation would mean being free to >> >> create releases without needing to translate decisions made by the >> developers >> >> (regardless of what's changed) into any other language. Obviously >> anything >> >> that moves upstream would need to be represented in English. >> > >> > Provided that there are sane versioning rules for the sources, I don't >> > see why a local language "preliminary release vote" needs to be held >> here. >> > OTOH I do know that the only votes that count are (P)PMC votes, so any >> source >> > release needs to follow all the normal rules of an ASF release, including >> > soliciting positive votes from the IPMC on general@incubator. >> > >> > Once the project graduates those per-lang decisions still need to be >> carried >> > out by PMC members, tho they don't necessarily have to do it on an >> English >> > language mailing list, provided they are able to accept votes from >> > English-speaking-only members of the PMC regarding their candidates. >> > >> >> I disagree. I don't think, for example, that it would be sufficient >> to call for a release vote in Japanese on a Japanese mailing list. >> This would be true, even if three PPMC members were contacted off list >> to point them to the otherwise obscure voting thread. That is >> tantamount to a stealth ballot. Why not just send the ballot to >> ooo-commits in Sumerian? >> >> We need a standard, well-known, recognized "polling place" for votes >> to occur, and I think that is be with ooo-dev. > > > Is this debate really necessary when we can simply devise a non-onerous > procedure which will render all of this academic? > > 1. I a NL community is hell bent on autonomy they can just create a fork. > 2. If they are not they are likely to be amenable to a simple courtesy of > posting their intentions in English and waiting for Lazy Consensus to run it > course. >
That makes sense to me. And I think it will all be a lot clearer once we've gone through a release in English. Right now we're speculating about the autonomy of groups that don't even appear to be here, about decisions that are not being proposed, about code that they are not yet touching. If we reserve our attention to real problems rather then create imaginary ones, we'll make faster progress, In other words, the concrete is probably easier to handle than the hypothetical. What Brazilian participants say and want should matter a lot more to us than what Simon or I think they should want, or have. -Rob > All Ross said was just be aware of some potential difficulties - maybe I'm > being naive but it seems to me there is a very simple safeguard so that's > all it needs. > -- > 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. >
