Can we please keep this thread focussed on the topic I intended it to be. If we really must get specific about the details of a very specific instance of decision making it needs its own thread.
Ross On 12 September 2011 17:08, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Donald Whytock <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 11:07 AM >>> Subject: Re: Umbrella projects >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Why not just send the ballot to >>>> ooo-commits in Sumerian? >>> >>> I should think that would have to at least start out on ooo-dev-sux. >>> >>> NL development outsider here, asking for clarification...Would changes >>> to the ixn components be considered changes to the "source"? Because >>> if it doesn't involve actual code changes I could see such a thing >>> justifying a vote on some ooo-dev-xx but then only needing lazy >>> consensus on ooo-dev. >> >> 90% of the organizational concern for releases regards their licensing, >> which I don't believe gets translated into other languages (at least not >> without legal-discuss@ approval of the actual text.) >> >> I have no idea where ixn lives in the subversion tree, but mods that >> are committed to the tree are still mods that need to be voted on >> when it comes time to release something based on those files. >> >> My suggestion is for per-lang committers to be placed on the PPMC, >> and for those folks to conduct their votes on their per-lang list. >> Once that's accomplished, lets leave the training wheels on at first >> and ask ooo-dev@ to approve the release candidates via lazy consensus. >> Then take the whole shebang to the general@incubator list for formal >> approval by the IPMC (this step will go away when ooo graduates). >> > > Maybe someone can clear up exactly what we're talking about with a > language release. > > My understanding was we have a core code base, that has all > code-dependent i10n features in it. We also have translations, > dictionaries, etc., per language. We can build a release in English > and then require that the user download an additional "language pack" > to enable an additional language. Or we can spin off a build (more of > a new install build) to include an additional language. > > You can see this here, with the existing releases: > > http://download.openoffice.org/other.html > > So the question comes down to: what languages do we support via > officially-released install images, versus which ones are supported > via language packs? For example, today, for Uzbek, it is only > available via a language pack. > > This might vary based on the timing of the translation. In other > words, we might release a new version with core languages supported, > and then enable additional languages over time as translations > complete. It would not make sense to wait for a release until all 160 > language translations are complete. > > I think it would be overkill to support this model via PPMC > delegation. OOo supports 110 languages. At 3 PPMC members per > language (for the required 3 +1's in a release vote) that comes to 330 > PPMC members. Of course, there will be some overlap, so maybe it > comes down to 200 new PPMC members or so, plus or minus 50. I'm not > sure that makes sense. > > So it is not clear that delegation to NL PPMC members really solves > the problem. We need to be having a conversation between those who > are doing the translations, those testing the translations and the > PPMC, on whether a translation is ready to release, either via > language pack or as a full install. > > Of course, if the Mentors wish to mentor 110 different NL groups on > the finer points of release management at Apache, then I don't want to > get in their way. > > But I'll propose a simpler solution. We should make it easy to > nominate and approve releases of language packs and full installs > based on already approved source releases. All we need is some > indication from an expert that a given translation was ready. This > might be from a PPMC member, a Committer, or a number of Users on the > user list who have tried a pre-release language pack snapshot. We > need to rely on expertise here, expertise outside of the PPMC. But > once we decide to spin a new release, I don't think why this is not > most easily done by a vote on ooo-dev. And I'd feel much better if > the same volunteers who are building the core installs also built the > 110 language versions. It makes zero sense to have 330 different > people doing this (110 languages x 3 platforms). There is too much > scope for error. > > -Rob > -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
