On 3 November 2012 00:27, Andrea Pescetti <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 02/11/2012 jan iversen wrote: > >> I lean it was all wrong and basically I should never have >> tampered with that site. ... >> >> simply drop my pages and let l10n live as it is, then someone with more >> knowledge than me will hopefully clean it up sometime. >> > > This is not correct. Decisions are taken by consensus, and this often > entails that what we get is different from what you originally thought, or > what Alexandro originally thought, or what I may think. And, when it works, > it ensures that the result is better than what you, Alexandro or me had in > mind. > I understand and believe it is a central part of openSource that decisions are taken in consensus !! and I really did my best to secure a consensus in advance before I started working. But now after the job is done, things we clearly discussed and nobody objected to are wrong (moving l10n to an archive). I do not appreciate that we reach consensus AFTER the work is done, that seems to me like wasted time (not only for me). There is a time for discussion and a time for doing, for a small thing like the l10n site is plays no big role, but for the l10n workflow it would be a BIG time waste. > > For sure there's no reason to drop the current > http://www.openoffice.org/**l10n-new/<http://www.openoffice.org/l10n-new/>; > it seems it only misses links from > http://www.openoffice.org/**l10n/ <http://www.openoffice.org/l10n/> > which could be put in a "Resources" page. The rest, especially if it has > many incoming links/visits according to Rob's report, would simply be > shadowed (i.e., existing but not linked). > Actually it was agreed (see earlier mails) to make an archive directory which I did. And for sure I agree we should keep the traffic but it would have been nice to have had that as part of the discussion BEFORE I, Ariel and Rob spent hours doing something just as well could have left alone. > > Even if, as Ariel says, portions will have to be copied and pasted, it > doesn't seem too much work to replicate the current links (the still > applicable ones) from l10n to l10n-new and "archive" l10n except for the > pages that are getting significant traffic. > No it is not a big job, and I would happily if I just knew what to do, I have copied all the information I could find that was updated, so maybe it would be better that those who know what is missing, do that. I am really scared, if "consensus" means in essence, "feel free to wait and see the outcome before complaining", instead of bringing the themes in advance while it is being discussed. The issues that are on the table, was to a large extent mentioned in the discussions. Following the "after work is done consensus model" would mean, that the document I have written on l10n workflow and the discussions we have had is nice, but in no way a guarantee of "consensus". I run the risk of using quite a lot of time developing the tools, releasing them, and then be told "If we go with Jan way of working we would be trashing projects left and right". I do NOT want to cause trashing of projects, I want to help make AOO an even better product by developing/writing/assisting based on proper discussions to make sure it reflect the opinion of the community and not just my ideas. I will be happy to do whatever we all agree to, but in my opinion we must reach consensus before we start developing/editing so we do not trash projects left and right. And at the moment I do not know how anybody can really know when consensus is reached. Please excuse me, if I have used wrong wording or misunderstood the process, but please also understand it is NO fun, first using time to discuss, then implement in close accordance with the discussions, just to be told what I have read in this thread. > > Regards, > Andrea. >
