On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > > 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. > > 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" > > Should we add a line to the podling report - for the IPMC and board's > attention? > I'd be happy to do that. And I think something like this would be ideal -- access to a specific resource only. >From an implementation standpoint, I don't know what could/would be done, but that's a conversation for someone else. Maybe let others have a say first -- I don't know what the ramifications are of modifying a quarterly report past the deadline -- which was yesterday. > > Regards, > Dave > > > > > > >> 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" > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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"
