On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Juan C. Sanz <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
So we fix the technical problem, right? My main point is it seems premature to take this to legal-discuss, the IPMC, etc., if all that is needed is a quick chat with Infra. -Rob >
