On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 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" >
Why not allow that to everyone? I'm trying to see what harm would come from that? No one needs special permission to enter a BZ issue and attach a patch. Why can't someone log into Pootle and enter a suggestion? Is there a technical reason why this is not happening? > Should we add a line to the podling report - for the IPMC and board's > attention? > > 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" >
