On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 6:25 PM, jan iversen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > I have to say that I never really understood what you were trying to achieve. From what I read you wanted to add some dynamism to the template, which I agree. The way Rob explained was that there was thinking from the beginning to integrate the content back to reincorporate l10n-new to l10n. It didnt make sense to my why just not apply the changes straight to l10n. It seems you are trying to add dynamic menu system which is fine. My main concern is that l10n current information will get blown out including the relevant information. l10n has a lot of good information like l18n and l10n frameworks, documentation and such. It also has a structure and has some legacy too. I was pushing to for a sensitive update of information, meaning updating whatever is already there, pages like 'how-to-join', and others. > > > > > > 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. > Are you related with the concept of 'forever beta'. Meaning that work is never finished and is always in constant review and re-review. I NEVER suggest to stop what you or anyone else is doing, but I did was opposed to just 'starting from scratch' and deleting or achieving everything without a proper review. Specially from people that is new to the project. > > 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". > Feel free to point me to key emails about what reasoning was taken place to act the way you are acting. But I think this is a major part of working in open source. We all want the same thing here which is a viable project. Like I said in the previous email, I have been working around the content of l10n updating the links to the mailing list as well as others key information on contact. My goal is to get you and others to update the information within the current l10n site. Structural changes (creating new files, branches, and folders) does put me nervous specially because a lot of content is going uncomented. Content such as state of the frameworks, decision on IRC channels, and other assets which are there, and could be wasted because we didnt took the time to talk about them. Simple question, what would happened to: - Glosaries - Testing - Frameworks (l18n/l10n). - Language charts - Tutorials Which will staay in the site, and which will be handled on the wiki for example. > > 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. > > > -- Alexandro Colorado PPMC Apache OpenOffice http://es.openoffice.org
