On Nov 10, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 9:06 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As many of you may know, per Dave's announcement about a week or so ago, we
>>> have a staging site of *MOST* (we're still finding areas that need to be
>>> "re-pulled" for one reason or another), of the (old) current OO.o site at:
>>>
>>> http://ooo-site.apache.org
>>>
>>> Right now, I have a question about the existing "pl" (Polish) site at
>>>
>>> http://pl.openoffice.org/
>>>
>>> Does anyone on this list know anything about the history of the Polish site
>>> -- why this group decided to basically make a duplicate of the
>>> OpenOffice.org site but translated? None of the other N-L sites have gone
>>> to this length so I'm just curious about it.
>>>
>>> Also, at this point in our migration plans, do we have anyone here who is
>>> willing to continue to maintain the "pl" site as it stands?
>>>
>>
>> My general philosophy on this:
>>
>> 1) If there is something useful then it will have users. Users are at
>> the base of the pyramid of a project. If you have many users, then
>> you are healthy.
>>
>> 2) Of the users, a percentage of them will get a little more involve
>> and submit a defect report or maybe even a small patch or other wise
>> get involved a little more. They are the contributors to the project.
>> If they have a good experience with their initial contributions and
>> interactions with the community, then they may do more.
>>
>> 3) And of the contributors there is a percentage that will get fully
>> involved, sign the iCLA, become committers, and work more actively on
>> code, website, documentation, etc.
>>
>> So anything we do to encourage more users, and to make it easy for the
>> users to become contributors will help us have more committers in the
>> future.
>>
>> Does this make sense?
>
> Yes! We need to assure that what is done with the N-L sites invites those
> users into the project.
>
> At the same time there are minimum rules about fundraising and licenses that
> are very different from OpenOffice.org. How do we handle this without
> understanding the language?
>
> The Native Language (N-L) issue is, as Rob points out, more about the whole
> project and not the N-L sites.
>
> I think that the following process should be considered.
>
> (1) Migrate each N-L site fully into the Apache SVN. They are all preserved.
>
> (2) Tag each site in SVN to preserve the state and make it easy to find the
> "initial" state. Keep a record of this tag on an N-L page.
>
> (3) Remove from SVN all, or most, of the N-L site. Nothing is really deleted
> the whole site will always be recoverable from the tag created in (2).
>
> (4) Update the www / English site - moving dev portions to the podling and
> writing the correct guidelines and policies for the main front.
>
> (5) As Volunteers appear from a N-L the first task is to translate pages and
> header links in (4). Translated pages will be accessed using ACCEPT-LANG
> browser headers, the structure should follow.
>
> (6) Each N-L may continue to have a unique main page that will be accessed
> either at pl.openoffice.org/ redirected to www.openoffice.org/pl
>
> (7) Each N-L should have there own links page to go off-site to locally
> appropriate sites.
>
> (8) If an N-L site is doing any fundraising outside of the ASF then that must
> move off openoffice.org. Those pages should be linked to from the page
> described in (7) and they must make clear that those funds are not associated
> with the ASF. This is is something that the ASF requires.
>
> (9) A N-L site might need pages that the main site or other N-L sites might
> not have, in that case maybe everyone needs the page, or one like it. It can
> be worked out.
>
+1
Sounds like a very good plan
As we document this it will also create a very clear process for integrating
new languages. Also, clear boundaries on linking to external resources will
help clean up the current situation, identifying what should be inside the
Apache OpenOffice effort, and how to interface to activities occurring outside.
> Obviously there would be a lot of sinew and muscles to add to this skeleton
> and I've not focused on related spellcheck, dictionary, ML, ..., but does
> this approach make sense?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> So the question I have on the Polish website is, how are we doing for
>> users? Do we know what the download stats are for the Polish version
>> of OOo? If it is significant, I'd assume there are many visitors to
>> those web pages as well. Unfortunately we don't have any page count
>> statistics for our website. So we really don't have a good sense of
>> how much used these pages are.
>>
>> In any case, what I am saying is this: If it is useful and used, then
>> we should keep it and make sure we have a communication to those users
>> that let's them know that we always welcome their help in maintaining
>> that website, and explain how they can get more involved.
>>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Also note, this site has not yet been ported over to the staging site.
>>>
>>> And finally, I am having a few problems getting my recent changes to the
>>> N-L page to actually "publish" so no fun link from the staging home page
>>> yet.
>>> <http://ooo-site.apache.org/>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
>>> by the way its animals are treated."
>>> -- Mohandas Gandhi
>>>
>
