On 2 November 2012 17:54, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 01/11/2012 Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:21 PM, jan iversen wrote: >> >>> - We need to focus more on people who want to help, instead of using all >>> the legal stuff (which are necessary) as a buffer not to move things. >>> (e.g. >>> I got 2 volunteers working on a danish translation, highly motivated, now >>> we are discussing details about how to release the stuff). ... >>> >> I don't think anyone is using "legal stuff' to prevent things from >> moving forward. >> > > There is a bit of confusion here. One thing is allowing volunteers to have > feedback on their work, the other one is releasing their work. For feedback > we needn't focus on legal issues. So the Danish translation as discussed in > https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=121179<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121179> > will be integrated in any next 3.4.x (informal, i.e., "snapshots") builds. > The "legal stuff" is not playing any roles here. > > > But it is certainly true that a new volunteer is encouraged the best >> when they can contribute today and see their results released >> tomorrow. >> > > I'd focus on "used" rather than "released": it is more motivating to see > their results used (i.e., a snapshot build) soon than to see them released > after months. And this is where we should improve. To give volunteers > feedback we only need a very lightweight process, ideally zero. > > What is delaying us with the current translations, for example, is just > that we need to determine a suitable deadline for translators to check in > their PO files, integrating them on http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/** > incubator/ooo/branches/AOO34/<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/branches/AOO34/>and > building snapshot for AOO34. At the moment this is indeed quite > demanding on Juergen and Ariel. > > > - I think events like ApacheCon is nice, but events like FOSDEM is quite a >>> lot more important for the "ordinary" openSource developer. >>> >> And we are planning a dev room at Fosdem for that reason. >> > > By FOSDEM (and ideally much earlier) we must be ready to integrate new > volunteers in a way that fully satisfies them and the project. This is a > priority for OpenOffice as a project. > > We are getting close to this for what concerns localization: I expect that > in a couple weeks we will be able to involve, engage and satisfy > localization volunteers with an established process. We must then do the > same for QA, development, Marketing... > > An important result we should achieve is that nobody should feel > frustrated by not having committer privileges: it is also up to us to > define tasks that can be done without depending too much on a committer > helping the contributor. At least we should warn them: if someone wants to > rebuild an entire section of the OpenOffice website, like it is happening > with Jan, he should be told in advance that this contribution is really > welcome (and that, for most sections, we really need it!) but that at a > certain point he might feel frustration for not being a committer. There > are hundreds of tasks that can be done by non-committers, and we should > keep the distinction clear when we advertise tasks for volunteers. (That > said, the "privileges" of being a committer or a PMC member are greatly > exaggerated at times... it's not that much really; but when this is the > only obstacle to getting things really done, I can understand the > impatience). > I think I got ample warning ahead of doing the rewrite of l10n, what surprised was the discussion going on right now, that is quite frustrating, especially because I opened the theme before I did the work, and nobody complained, on the contrary many said "yes please do". If you things like I do it can be quite frustrating not to have committer status, not at all for the privilege, but because I have to waster a committers valuable time, doing simple jobs. So the sentence "it's not that much really", is not quite correct, it can be quite time saving. > Regards, > Andrea. >