2012/6/8 Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>: > 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? >
AFAIK, right now accept suggestions is not working but once this problem is solved I think that "opening" the system so anyone can issue a suggestion is really good: the analogy with BZ is just perfect. Regards Ricardo
