On 6/8/12 8:58 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > I'm a little concerned about this idea of AOO being somehow different from > other Apache projects. Its not, its just software. In Apache projects > everyone is equal. If someone earns merit they earn merit, it makes no > difference how that merit is earned. > > The issue here should not be a different class of contributor it should be > how to facilitate a different type of contribution and thus bootstrap their > involvement in the project. Please don't create an artificial layer of > hierarchy in order to do that. Hierarchy in an open development project is > bad. > > Note we have a VP who has never written a line of code in their life. As > far as I'm aware they have never written a translation string or any > documentation. Despite this there was no need to create a new class of > community member to bring them into the ASF. > > I propose the problem is in the workflow not in the structure of ASF > projects. If that is the case then we need to examine why non-committer > translators are unable to contribute efficiently. Find out why our default > policies say they need to be committees and address that issue. > > For example, are contributions to Pootle any different to patches sent via > JIR# from an IP point of view? If not then there is no need for an ICLA but > there is a need for an audit trail.
I agree and Rob pointed already out that we have something like that (what I have proposed) already. In case of Pootle contributions we simply need an open user registration to solve the "unknown" issue i some way. Pootle allow us to define default rights for users and when we define that translation can be seen or compared with patches it sounds like a good step forward. My idea was mainly that we think about some formalization of this special user registration. Independent of registering for bugzilla, the wiki or Pootle, the user have to agree to contribute everything under ALv2. Sorry for the confusion Juergen > > Ross > > Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. > On Jun 7, 2012 11:30 PM, "Kay Schenk" <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Jürgen Schmidt >>> <jogischm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: >>>>> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com> >>> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com> >>> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr <h...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working with >>> pootle >>>>>>>>>> currently requires committership, which results in translators >>> having having >>>>>>>>>> to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list. The >>> board needs to >>>>>>>>>> decide if this short-circuiting of the process is desirable or >> not >>> and what >>>>>>>>>> the alternatives are. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to the project >> to >>> define its >>>>>>>>> own expectations of committers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> it's a very bad limitation. I would prefer a user management which >>>>>>>> allows registration (by email verification) of new users and where >>> new >>>>>>>> users agree to contribute under the Apache license. Maybe combined >>> with >>>>>>>> an iCLA but not necessarily require to be committer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I am not sure if something like that would be possible at all. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and hope that >> we >>> can >>>>>>>> reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together with >> them >>> on >>>>>>>> a fast-track. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree that the limitation suboptimal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suggest someone take this up with legal-discuss@ If legal@ feel >>> able >>>>>>> to approve a more relaxed approach to iCLAs for access to Pootle >> then >>>>>>> infra@ can be asked to find a technical solution. >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree and thanks to remind me that I should take the appropriate >>>>>> action to address things like that ;-) >>>>> >>>>> Careful with the "I" - madness lies that way ;-) >>>>> >>>>> This is the perfect opportunity for someone lurking here to make an >>>>> early and potentially very significant contribution. Shepherding these >>>>> kinds of actions takes time away from those embedded in the coding. >>>>> It's a good way to earn merit while you figure out where to contribute >>>>> to the project. If someone like that is reading but not sure how to >>>>> proceed I'm sure others will help guide you. >>>> >>>> I agree but the idea is not really new and nothing happened so far ;-) >>>> >>>> Thinking more about it I would like to discuss a new term "Apache >>>> contributor" where users can register for an user account by accepting >>>> that all their contributions are under ALv2. The verification can be by >>>> email verification and the iCLA can be required as well (details have >> to >>>> be defined). With such accounts people would get access to more pubic >>>> wikis (like our user wiki), tools like Pootle, bugzilla etc. >>>> >>> >>> The "contributor" role at Apache already handles this. A contributor >>> can already register in Bugzilla, post patches, register in the wiki, >>> contribute documentation, etc. >>> >>> What a contributor cannot do is directly modify the product code in >>> SVN. So they are in RTC mode with respect to product code, including >>> translations. >>> >>> I think the disconnect here is we only have an anonymous method for >>> contributors to add translations to Pootle. I can see the >>> justification for requiring non-committers to submit translations as >>> patches in BZ or via suggestions in Pootle. But the anonymous part of >>> this is completely wrong, both from community and from legal >>> standpoint. >>> >>> For example, those who contribute to Pootle, anonymously, see their >>> contributions marked as being from "nobody" in the UI: >>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/OOo_34/ >>> >>> Isn't that rather insulting? >>> >> >> yes, it is...I thought Juergen was suggesting that some special submission >> access if you will be granted to the Pootle server. >> >> What I see here are some "non-standard" submissions in the Apache sense >> emerging in OpenOffice. I was alluding to this in a post I made the other >> day, but didn't specify anything. Using the Pootle server is a perfect >> example of such a case. >> >> We need to take this to its own thread sometime soon I think -- maybe after >> graduation? -- and see what can be done. I can't imagine that some new >> methods can't be enacted. >> >> >> >>> It also makes it very difficult for the PMC to do their job, since we >>> cannot effectively track top contributors and nominate them for >>> committership of the work is all by "nobody". >>> >>> From legal perspective, we're failing to track where our contributions >>> are coming from. >> >> >> yes, I brought this up as well...it's a concern. >> >> >>> We're losing the provenance of the translations by >>> not associating translation contributions with a user ID/email >>> address. >>> >> >> No argument here... >> >> >>> >>> -Rob >>> >>>> The difference between contributors and committers would be that only >>>> committers get the @apache.org email address. >>>> >>>> I think that a such lightweight user could be useful and the license >>>> question of their contributions would be clear form the beginning. >>>> >>>> Juergen >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> MzK >> >> "Everything will be all right in the end... >> if it's not all right then it's not the end. " >> -- Sonny, "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" >> >
