On 2 November 2012 22:31, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Nov 2, 2012, at 2:12 PM, jan iversen wrote: > > > 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. > > You are not wasting a committers valuable time. The committer's time is > spent evaluating your contribution. When the committer(s) begin to feel > that their time is beginning to be wasted that is the point they ought to > suggest to the PMC that it is time DISCUSS giving the individual committers > rights. This discussion occurs in private, the discussion is then followed > by a private VOTE that lasts at least 3 days. EIther or both of these > processes can be public on the dev list. >
I think I formulated myself badly, there is a process for being invited to be committer and I have NO opinion on that process, except it sounds reasonable to me !! The part about time waste (regarding the l10n website), is currently a discussion on l10n, so we should not also discuss it here. > If the community thinks that a private DISCUSS followed by a public VOTE > would encourage contributors then I would be for changing the policy. > Perhaps to the following. > > (1) Private DISCUSS on potential new Committers lasting at least 72 hours > until there is clear CONSENSUS. > (2) Chair contacts the contributor to make sure they are interested and to > let them know a VOTE is coming. > (3) Potential Committer confirms interest to private. > (4) VOTE is started on dev @ oo.a.o. Lasts 72 hours. > (5) ICLA, Account creation and Karma grant occur as now. > > Regards, > Dave > > > So the sentence "it's not that > > much really", is not quite correct, it can be quite time saving. > > > > > >> Regards, > >> Andrea. > >> > >
