El 08/06/2012 1:22, Rob Weir escribió:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]>wrote:
+1 on this discussion so far.
I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
Also, the anonymous contribution to pootle is a no-no.
- Dennis
PS: Changing to the [DISCUSS] that is called for and to have it be visible.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 09:41
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: *DRAFT FINAL* June board report
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr <[email protected]> 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?
[reposted since I didn't see this topic change]
yes, it is...I thought Juergen was suggesting that some special submission
access if you will be granted to the Pootle server.
As in we would like to be able to allow people with an iCLA on file to register
for access to the pootle server.
We can call these people "invited translators"
Why not allow that to everyone? I'm trying to see what harm would
come from that? No one needs special permission to enter a BZ issue
and attach a patch. Why can't someone log into Pootle and enter a
suggestion? Is there a technical reason why this is not happening?
+1
But as far as I can remember it didn't work properly
http://markmail.org/message/kahew2uqvrzmf4ag?q=list:org%2Eapache%2Eincubator%2Eooo-dev+pootle+suggestion
