On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org>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:robw...@apache.org] > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 09:41 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: *DRAFT FINAL* June board report > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Jürgen Schmidt > <jogischm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > >> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > >>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > >>>> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > >>>>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > >>>>>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr <h...@apache.org> 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. > It also makes it very difficult for the PMC to do their job, since we > cannot effectively track top contributors and nominate them for > committership of the work is all by "nobody". > > From legal perspective, we're failing to track where our contributions > are coming from. We're losing the provenance of the translations by > not associating translation contributions with a user ID/email > address. > > -Rob > What I see here are some "non-standard" submissions in the Apache sense emerging in OpenOffice. I was alluding to this in a post I made the other day, but didn't specify anything. Using the Pootle server is a perfect example of such a case. Maybe we can take this up with the Board after graduation? -- and see what can be done. I can't imagine that some new methods can't be enacted. > > The difference between contributors and committers would be that only > > committers get the @apache.org email address. > > > > I think that a such lightweight user could be useful and the license > > question of their contributions would be clear form the beginning. > > > > Juergen > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "Everything will be all right in the end... if it's not all right then it's not the end. " -- Sonny, "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel"
