date:20120310


Regina Henschel wrote:

looking at the pages at http://www.openoffice.org/de/ I notice, that
some stylesheets are no longer reachable. For example this links are
broken.
http://asset-3.openoffice.org/stylesheets/base_packaged.css?20120224.bfbd7ec


And, similarly, JavaScript from those subdomains seems to be no longer 
accessible yet, which means that I can't moderate the (legacy) Italian 
lists and send them shutdown notices, since the moderation panel depends 
on that JavaScript.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [RELEASE]: preparation for our first release


On 27/02/2012 Andre Fischer wrote:

Would it make sense to make localization a more continuous process? Like
adding a step to the build server to collect new strings daily or
weekly, upload them to the pootle server, and integrate any newly
translated strings?


It would be nice to have but not necessarily urgent or important: the 
most urgent problem is access for volunteers, that is being discussed 
separately. For the time being, it would be perfectly acceptable to 
establish deadlines, with no need for a continuous process.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [BUILD]: propose next developer snapshot based on revision 1293738


On 06/03/2012 Pedro Giffuni wrote:

On 02/28/12 08:06, RGB ES wrote:

It seems there is a naming problem on the icon sets for Spanish
localization, were I have
Galaxia
Alto contraste
Industrial
Cristal The problem
Tango
If I switch to English UI, I have
Galaxy
High Contrast
Industrial
Tango
Classic

On the Spanish localization, Cristal displays Tango icons while
Tango displays Classic icons.

I found it:
extras/l10n/source/es/localize.sdf line 51273 has this:
OFA_TP_VIEW.LB_ICONSTYLE 5 0 es Cristal
This string have to be updated in Pootle.


Does the same problem apply to Italian and possibly all other languages? 
In the Italian localization, I see Crystal among the possible icon 
sets too.


But in OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 this corresponds to a KDE-themed icon set, 
while in the latest build it seems to point to another set. So it seems 
the same problem described by Ricardo.


Is it possible that those string are translated based on some weird 
parameters, like position in the list instead of their actual text?


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [RELEASE]: Where we are with the redirects to the new extension/template repos


On Mar 9, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

 On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
 
 Yesterday I reset the topnav 'extend' button to point to
 extensions.openoffice.org instead if / extensions/
 
 It took awhile to come through but worked this morning.
 
 Regards,
 Dave
 
 
 ok, the topnav...that's fine. I changed the button link back to
 www.openoffice.org/extensions instead of this because it gave a link to the
 wiki and maybe some other info that might be useful.

OK. I should revert  the topnav change. I think these two links should be 
equivalent.

The extensions page should have all the relevant links along with a description 
of the SourceForge relationship.

There should be direct links to -

- The extensions site.
- The templates site.
- The extensions wiki.

Any other suggestions?

The mailing lists need to be removed. There should be a major scan of ooo-site 
for other MLs to remove another issue.

Regards,
Dave

 
 
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 
 On Mar 9, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Roberto Galoppini rgalopp...@geek.net
 wrote:
 
 On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 2012/3/6 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com
 
 Hi,
 
 can anybody tell me where we are with the Url redirects to the new
 extensions repository.
 
 We have for example
 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=118976
 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118976as show stopper
 issue
 
 Do we have specific problems with the redirects?
 
 
 Juergen--
 
 Both of these seem to be redirecting correctly, near as I can tell.
 
 +++
 nslookup extensions.services.openoffice.org
 
 
 Non-authoritative answer:
 extensions.services.openoffice.org  canonical name =
 aoo-extensions.sf.net.
 Name:   aoo-extensions.sf.net
 Address: 216.34.181.96
 
 nslookup templates.services.openoffice.org
 
 
 Non-authoritative answer:
 templates.services.openoffice.org   canonical name =
 aoo-templates.sf.net.
 Name:   aoo-templates.sf.net
 Address: 216.34.181.96
 
 
 The short URLs are not correct at this time -- directing instead to
 the
 web server address. We will need to contact INFRA on this. I can do
 this
 if
 you like.
 
 Please let us know when it's done, and I'd kindly ask you also to add
 the following:
 
 216.34.181.96 updateexte.services.openoffice.org
 
 So that we can manage properly extensions updates.
 
 
 Hi--
 
 There seems to be a problem with this one
 updateexte.services.openoffice.org -- it's not resolving correctly. I
 have
 re-opened my ticket from yesterday. Once this one is fixed, I'll deal
 with
 users
 
 later...
 
 -- K
 
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 Roberto
 
 
 
 
 And can we use short Urls for
 
 extensions.services.**openoffice.org
 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org-
 extensions.openoffice.org
 we can drop the former extension.openoffice.org web page, it guides
 the
 user mainly to the wiki
 
 templates.services.openoffice.**org
 http://templates.services.openoffice.org=
 templates.openoffice.org
 user.services.openoffice.org = user.openoffice.org
 
 
 Juergen
 
 
 
 
 --
 
 
 
 MzK
 
 Follow your bliss.
   -- attributed to Joseph Campbell
 
 
 
 
 --
 
 
 MzK
 
 Follow your bliss.
-- attributed to Joseph Campbell
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 
 MzK
 
 Follow your bliss.
 -- attributed to Joseph Campbell

Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Michael Bauer f...@akerbeltz.org wrote:

 09/03/2012 21:22, sgrìobh Rob Weir:

 OK. I think we have a volunteer project admin for the AOO Pootle project.
 That is Raphael, right?

 As an l10n admin you mean? Which would be fine. However, a single person
 can't realistically be admin to oversee all language projects from a
 linguistic point of view. While many of us can handle more than one
 language, there's no one that can handle all of them.

 Most of us are not familiar with how it was handled before, so it is
 good to discuss the details, so we all understand it.

 Which is why I suggested that the interested/involved parties sign up for
 accounts over on the LibreOffice Pootle server just so they see how it
 works. I *don't know* all the technicalities of how Pootle works either.


I am more interested in a high level understanding of the roles, etc.
The technical details of the exotic is something else, how we extract
strings from the build, using different tools and formats, convert
them to SDF, then to PO, then translate, then back to PO and then to
SDF and to resource files.


 Right now it is configured so all Apache committers can login and have
 review and commit rights.  Non-logged in users (everyone else) can
 view, suggest and submit translations.

 What are we missing?

 Would it work, for example, if the translation leads become Apache
 committers?


 This is all making localization of OO unnecessarily complicated. Looking at
 it another way - is there a way of separating the signup and rights
 management of Pootle on Apache from the rest of the rights management on
 Apache? All the necessary localization tools and processes are there within
 Pootle. The only problem we're facing is that the only signup and rights
 management path at the moment is via the standard Apache signup etc. We need
 to make the two separate.


Certainly Apache projects understand the need for there to be
contributors as well as committers.  We have many systems where
anyone, even on their first day in the project, can contribute. For
example, the wiki, the forums,submitting patches for the website, even
patches for the code.  None of these require being a committer.

However, submitting strings for localization is something that
requires more consideration than just updating a wiki page.  These
strings eventually become part of Apache releases, so we need to make
sure these contributions are given more attention.  At the very least
I think they require:

1) We know who made the contribution.  This is good from IP
perspective, but also from a community perspective.  Contributors
should get recognition for their work.  If they can only contribute
anonymously, this is a problem.  It also hinders the PMC from
recognizing active contributors and offering them committer rights.

2) We need the translations to be contributed under the Apache 2.0
license. This does not necessarily require a signed iCLA.  It could be
done with a proper notice on the Pootle server.

3) We need some mechanism for a Committer to review and commit
contributed translations.  This doesn't necessarily mean that we must
have committers that can read 110 different languages.  But it does
mean that we need a process that a Committer can follow to ensure that
the translations are of sufficient quality to be included in a
release. An example of such a process could be:

a) Committer verifies the origin of the translation strings,e.g., they
came from Pootle server from known contributors.

b) Committer verifies the integrity and completeness of the
translation.  In other words, whatever can be checked by tools without
understanding the underlying language.  If an automated smoke test can
be executed to verify that the strings don't break the build, then we
should do that as well at this stage.

c) At this point the language strings are considered candidates and
the committer can check the strings into SVN.  They are included in
dev snapshots as candidate translations, but they are not yet
included in releases yet.

d) We have some sort of community review procedure.  We rely on native
speakers to test the translations.  We probably need a proactive RTC
rather than lazy consensus.  So maybe we just wait until we get 3 +1's
votes from volunteers who have tested the translation.  When we have
that, then the translation becomes approved rather than candidate.

Would something like the above work?  In this process there is no
formal leader for a given language.  But in practice the leader
emerges from their actions and the recognition that others working on
that language give them.  It is not something we (the AOO PMC) need to
appoint.

But we would need one more Committers to volunteer to lead the process
of taking translation candidates through this process.

 I've done you some screenshots of what a locale admin account looks like in
 Pootle (http://www.akerbeltz.org/Process.doc)

 The Overview (page 1) is, well, the

Re: [RELEASE]: Where we are with the redirects to the new extension/template repos

2012-03-10 Thread Kay Schenk




On 03/10/2012 08:39 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:


On Mar 9, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:


On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Dave Fisherdave2w...@comcast.net
wrote:


Yesterday I reset the topnav 'extend' button to point to
extensions.openoffice.org instead if / extensions/

It took awhile to come through but worked this morning.

Regards, Dave



ok, the topnav...that's fine. I changed the button link back to
www.openoffice.org/extensions instead of this because it gave a
link to the wiki and maybe some other info that might be useful.


OK. I should revert  the topnav change. I think these two links
should be equivalent.


OK...actually I notice *now* that extensions.openffice.org has a link to
the wiki...but no intro



The extensions page should have all the relevant links along with a
description of the SourceForge relationship.

There should be direct links to -

- The extensions site. - The templates site.


yes...I'll add that


- The extensions wiki.

Any other suggestions?

The mailing lists need to be removed. There should be a major scan of
ooo-site for other MLs to remove another issue.


yes, will do.

Oh, there's LOTS of cleanup in this regard...LOTS. Perhaps over the next 
month or so, we need to make an effort on this.




Regards, Dave






Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 9, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Kay Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com
wrote:


On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Roberto
Galoppinirgalopp...@geek.net wrote:


On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Kay
Schenkkay.sch...@gmail.com

wrote:

2012/3/6 J�rgen Schmidtjogischm...@googlemail.com


Hi,

can anybody tell me where we are with the Url redirects
to the new extensions repository.

We have for example

https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=118976
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118976as show
stopper

issue


Do we have specific problems with the redirects?



Juergen--

Both of these seem to be redirecting correctly, near as I
can tell.

+++ nslookup
extensions.services.openoffice.org


Non-authoritative answer:
extensions.services.openoffice.org  canonical name =
aoo-extensions.sf.net. Name:   aoo-extensions.sf.net
Address: 216.34.181.96

nslookup templates.services.openoffice.org


Non-authoritative answer: templates.services.openoffice.org
canonical name = aoo-templates.sf.net. Name:
aoo-templates.sf.net Address: 216.34.181.96


The short URLs are not correct at this time -- directing
instead to

the

web server address. We will need to contact INFRA on this.
I can do

this

if

you like.


Please let us know when it's done, and I'd kindly ask you
also to add the following:

216.34.181.96 updateexte.services.openoffice.org

So that we can manage properly extensions updates.



Hi--

There seems to be a problem with this one
updateexte.services.openoffice.org -- it's not resolving
correctly. I

have

re-opened my ticket from yesterday. Once this one is fixed,
I'll deal

with

users

later...

-- K




Thanks,

Roberto





And can we use short Urls for

extensions.services.**openoffice.org

http://extensions.services.openoffice.org-

extensions.openoffice.org we can drop the former
extension.openoffice.org web page, it guides

the

user mainly to the wiki

templates.services.openoffice.**org

http://templates.services.openoffice.org=

templates.openoffice.org user.services.openoffice.org =
user.openoffice.org


Juergen





--










MzK


Follow your bliss. -- attributed to Joseph Campbell






--








MzK


Follow your bliss. -- attributed to Joseph Campbell






--




MzK


Follow your bliss. -- attributed to Joseph Campbell




--

MzK

Follow your bliss.
 -- attributed to Joseph Campbell

Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server

Hi Rob,

My comments are meant to supplement and enhance your thoughts on measuring 
merit.

On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

 On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Michael Bauer f...@akerbeltz.org wrote:
 
 09/03/2012 21:22, sgrìobh Rob Weir:
 
 OK. I think we have a volunteer project admin for the AOO Pootle project.
 That is Raphael, right?
 
 As an l10n admin you mean? Which would be fine. However, a single person
 can't realistically be admin to oversee all language projects from a
 linguistic point of view. While many of us can handle more than one
 language, there's no one that can handle all of them.
 
 Most of us are not familiar with how it was handled before, so it is
 good to discuss the details, so we all understand it.
 
 Which is why I suggested that the interested/involved parties sign up for
 accounts over on the LibreOffice Pootle server just so they see how it
 works. I *don't know* all the technicalities of how Pootle works either.
 
 
 I am more interested in a high level understanding of the roles, etc.
 The technical details of the exotic is something else, how we extract
 strings from the build, using different tools and formats, convert
 them to SDF, then to PO, then translate, then back to PO and then to
 SDF and to resource files.
 
 
 Right now it is configured so all Apache committers can login and have
 review and commit rights.  Non-logged in users (everyone else) can
 view, suggest and submit translations.
 
 What are we missing?
 
 Would it work, for example, if the translation leads become Apache
 committers?
 
 
 This is all making localization of OO unnecessarily complicated. Looking at
 it another way - is there a way of separating the signup and rights
 management of Pootle on Apache from the rest of the rights management on
 Apache? All the necessary localization tools and processes are there within
 Pootle. The only problem we're facing is that the only signup and rights
 management path at the moment is via the standard Apache signup etc. We need
 to make the two separate.
 
 
 Certainly Apache projects understand the need for there to be
 contributors as well as committers.  We have many systems where
 anyone, even on their first day in the project, can contribute. For
 example, the wiki, the forums,submitting patches for the website, even
 patches for the code.  None of these require being a committer.
 
 However, submitting strings for localization is something that
 requires more consideration than just updating a wiki page.  These
 strings eventually become part of Apache releases, so we need to make
 sure these contributions are given more attention.  At the very least
 I think they require:
 
 1) We know who made the contribution.  This is good from IP
 perspective, but also from a community perspective.  Contributors
 should get recognition for their work.  If they can only contribute
 anonymously, this is a problem.  It also hinders the PMC from
 recognizing active contributors and offering them committer rights.
 
 2) We need the translations to be contributed under the Apache 2.0
 license. This does not necessarily require a signed iCLA.  It could be
 done with a proper notice on the Pootle server.
 
 3) We need some mechanism for a Committer to review and commit
 contributed translations.  This doesn't necessarily mean that we must
 have committers that can read 110 different languages.  But it does
 mean that we need a process that a Committer can follow to ensure that
 the translations are of sufficient quality to be included in a
 release. An example of such a process could be:
 
 a) Committer verifies the origin of the translation strings,e.g., they
 came from Pootle server from known contributors.
 
 b) Committer verifies the integrity and completeness of the
 translation.  In other words, whatever can be checked by tools without
 understanding the underlying language.  If an automated smoke test can
 be executed to verify that the strings don't break the build, then we
 should do that as well at this stage.
 
 c) At this point the language strings are considered candidates and
 the committer can check the strings into SVN.  They are included in
 dev snapshots as candidate translations, but they are not yet
 included in releases yet.
 
 d) We have some sort of community review procedure.  We rely on native
 speakers to test the translations.  We probably need a proactive RTC
 rather than lazy consensus.  So maybe we just wait until we get 3 +1's
 votes from volunteers who have tested the translation.  When we have
 that, then the translation becomes approved rather than candidate.
 
 Would something like the above work?  In this process there is no
 formal leader for a given language.  But in practice the leader
 emerges from their actions and the recognition that others working on
 that language give them.  It is not something we (the AOO PMC) need to
 appoint.
 
 But we would need one more Committers to volunteer to lead the process
 of

Re: Where are the legacy stylesheets?

On Mar 10, 2012, at 5:19 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

 Regina Henschel wrote:
 looking at the pages at http://www.openoffice.org/de/ I notice, that
 some stylesheets are no longer reachable. For example this links are
 broken.
 http://asset-3.openoffice.org/stylesheets/base_packaged.css?20120224.bfbd7ec
 
 And, similarly, JavaScript from those subdomains seems to be no longer 
 accessible yet, which means that I can't moderate the (legacy) Italian lists 
 and send them shutdown notices, since the moderation panel depends on that 
 JavaScript.

If you manipulate your /etc/hosts to change dns you can recover these assets 
and then check them into ooo-site to repair your site or take ML actions.

192.9.164.104   asset-0.openoffice.org
192.9.164.104   asset-1.openoffice.org
192.9.164.104   asset-2.openoffice.org
192.9.164.104   asset-3.openoffice.org

You can do the same with the svn archives.

192.9.164.104   svn.openoffice.org

Or any of the OOo sites.

192.9.164.104   de.openoffice.org

But hurry it may not be there much longer.

Regards,
Dave

 
 Regards,
  Andrea.

Implement genitive forms of month names (posessive context)

Hi,


for a long time (about 6 years) there is a feature request conserns Date Format 
representation as current one doesn't corresponds to National Standarts.
It is related to the abcence of possibility to use possessive genitive and 
partitive genitive case of moth's names that are accepted in many countries 
while choosing date format.

For more details see: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=62460


Also Note that this feature was realized in the LibreOffice (3.5.0), see 
decription of resolving method:
http://erack.org/blog/archives/2-LibreOffice-possessive-genitive-case-and-partitive-case-month-names.html



Regards

Implement genitive forms of month names (posessive context)

Hi,


for a long time (about 6 years) there is a feature request conserns Date Format 
representation as current one doesn't corresponds to National Standarts.
It is related to the abcence of possibility to use possessive genitive and 
partitive genitive case of moth's names that are accepted in many countries 
while choosing date format.

For more details see: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=62460


Also Note that this feature was realized in the LibreOffice (3.5.0), see 
decription of resolving method:
http://erack.org/blog/archives/2-LibreOffice-possessive-genitive-case-and-partitive-case-month-names.html



Regards

Implement genitive forms of month names (posessive context)

Hi,


for a long time (about 6 years) there is a feature request conserns Date Format 
representation as current one doesn't corresponds to National Standarts.
It is related to the abcence of possibility to use possessive genitive and 
partitive genitive case of moth's names that are accepted in many countries 
while choosing date format.

For more details see: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=62460


Also Note that this feature was realized in the LibreOffice (3.5.0), see 
decription of resolving method:
http://erack.org/blog/archives/2-LibreOffice-possessive-genitive-case-and-partitive-case-month-names.html



Regards

Re: Implement genitive forms of month names (posessive context)

Sorry for accidentally multiple request 


10 марта 2012, 21:38 от Сергей Торохов torohov_...@mail.ru:
 Hi,
 
 for a long time (about 6 years) there is a feature request conserns Date 
 Format representation as current one doesn't corresponds to National 
 Standarts.
 It is related to the abcence of possibility to use possessive genitive and 
 partitive genitive case of moth's names that are accepted in many countries 
 while choosing date format.
 
 For more details see: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=62460
 
 Also Note that this feature was realized in the LibreOffice (3.5.0), see 
 decription of resolving method:
 http://erack.org/blog/archives/2-LibreOffice-possessive-genitive-case-and-partitive-case-month-names.html
 
 Regards
 
 
aka Cthulhu

Re: [BUILD]: propose next developer snapshot based on revision 1293738

2012-03-10 Thread Pedro Giffuni

On 03/10/12 09:25, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 06/03/2012 Pedro Giffuni wrote:

On 02/28/12 08:06, RGB ES wrote:

It seems there is a naming problem on the icon sets for Spanish
localization, were I have
Galaxia
Alto contraste
Industrial
Cristal The problem
Tango
If I switch to English UI, I have
Galaxy
High Contrast
Industrial
Tango
Classic

On the Spanish localization, Cristal displays Tango icons while
Tango displays Classic icons.

I found it:
extras/l10n/source/es/localize.sdf line 51273 has this:
OFA_TP_VIEW.LB_ICONSTYLE 5 0 es Cristal
This string have to be updated in Pootle.

Does the same problem apply to Italian and possibly all other
languages? In the Italian localization, I see Crystal among the
possible icon sets too.

Yes. Crystal doesn't exist at all now, and the localization seems to be
isolated from the code. This issue may even apply to English for all I
know.

But in OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 this corresponds to a KDE-themed icon set,
while in the latest build it seems to point to another set. So it
seems the same problem described by Ricardo.

Is it possible that those string are translated based on some weird
parameters, like position in the list instead of their actual text?

The value was #DEFINE'd in the code and upon the removal the
values for the next types were bumped back:

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/vcl/inc/vcl/settings.hxx?r1=1206244r2=1206243pathrev=1206244
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/vcl/inc/vcl/settings.hxx?r1=1206244r2=1206243pathrev=1206244

cheers,

Pedro.

Regards,
Andrea.

Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
 Hi Rob,

 My comments are meant to supplement and enhance your thoughts on measuring 
 merit.

 On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

 On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Michael Bauer f...@akerbeltz.org wrote:

 09/03/2012 21:22, sgrìobh Rob Weir:

 OK. I think we have a volunteer project admin for the AOO Pootle project.
 That is Raphael, right?

 As an l10n admin you mean? Which would be fine. However, a single person
 can't realistically be admin to oversee all language projects from a
 linguistic point of view. While many of us can handle more than one
 language, there's no one that can handle all of them.

 Most of us are not familiar with how it was handled before, so it is
 good to discuss the details, so we all understand it.

 Which is why I suggested that the interested/involved parties sign up for
 accounts over on the LibreOffice Pootle server just so they see how it
 works. I *don't know* all the technicalities of how Pootle works either.


 I am more interested in a high level understanding of the roles, etc.
 The technical details of the exotic is something else, how we extract
 strings from the build, using different tools and formats, convert
 them to SDF, then to PO, then translate, then back to PO and then to
 SDF and to resource files.


 Right now it is configured so all Apache committers can login and have
 review and commit rights.  Non-logged in users (everyone else) can
 view, suggest and submit translations.

 What are we missing?

 Would it work, for example, if the translation leads become Apache
 committers?


 This is all making localization of OO unnecessarily complicated. Looking at
 it another way - is there a way of separating the signup and rights
 management of Pootle on Apache from the rest of the rights management on
 Apache? All the necessary localization tools and processes are there within
 Pootle. The only problem we're facing is that the only signup and rights
 management path at the moment is via the standard Apache signup etc. We need
 to make the two separate.


 Certainly Apache projects understand the need for there to be
 contributors as well as committers.  We have many systems where
 anyone, even on their first day in the project, can contribute. For
 example, the wiki, the forums,submitting patches for the website, even
 patches for the code.  None of these require being a committer.

 However, submitting strings for localization is something that
 requires more consideration than just updating a wiki page.  These
 strings eventually become part of Apache releases, so we need to make
 sure these contributions are given more attention.  At the very least
 I think they require:

 1) We know who made the contribution.  This is good from IP
 perspective, but also from a community perspective.  Contributors
 should get recognition for their work.  If they can only contribute
 anonymously, this is a problem.  It also hinders the PMC from
 recognizing active contributors and offering them committer rights.

 2) We need the translations to be contributed under the Apache 2.0
 license. This does not necessarily require a signed iCLA.  It could be
 done with a proper notice on the Pootle server.

 3) We need some mechanism for a Committer to review and commit
 contributed translations.  This doesn't necessarily mean that we must
 have committers that can read 110 different languages.  But it does
 mean that we need a process that a Committer can follow to ensure that
 the translations are of sufficient quality to be included in a
 release. An example of such a process could be:

 a) Committer verifies the origin of the translation strings,e.g., they
 came from Pootle server from known contributors.

 b) Committer verifies the integrity and completeness of the
 translation.  In other words, whatever can be checked by tools without
 understanding the underlying language.  If an automated smoke test can
 be executed to verify that the strings don't break the build, then we
 should do that as well at this stage.

 c) At this point the language strings are considered candidates and
 the committer can check the strings into SVN.  They are included in
 dev snapshots as candidate translations, but they are not yet
 included in releases yet.

 d) We have some sort of community review procedure.  We rely on native
 speakers to test the translations.  We probably need a proactive RTC
 rather than lazy consensus.  So maybe we just wait until we get 3 +1's
 votes from volunteers who have tested the translation.  When we have
 that, then the translation becomes approved rather than candidate.

 Would something like the above work?  In this process there is no
 formal leader for a given language.  But in practice the leader
 emerges from their actions and the recognition that others working on
 that language give them.  It is not something we (the AOO PMC) need to
 appoint.

 But we would need one

Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server

2012-03-10 Thread Michael Bauer


10/03/2012 08:45 sgrìobh Rob Weir
1) We know who made the contribution. This is good from IP 
perspective, but also from a community perspective. Contributors 
should get recognition for their work. If they can only contribute 
anonymously, this is a problem. It also hinders the PMC from 
recognizing active contributors and offering them committer rights. 
shrugs that never seems to have been a problem previously. There 
usually are many more translators, some who contribute only one or two 
translations, than can be listed.
3) We need some mechanism for a Committer to review and commit 
contributed translations. This doesn't necessarily mean that we must 
have committers that can read 110 different languages. But it does 
mean that we need a process that a Committer can follow to ensure that 
the translations are of sufficient quality to be included in a 
release. An example of such a process could be:


a) Committer verifies the origin of the translation strings,e.g., they 
came from Pootle server from known contributors.


That doesn't ensure anything. I could regularly contribue stuff that 
looks very much like, say, Navajo but no one has any way of knowing if 
it's good or bad if I'm the only one providing Navajo transalations.
c) At this point the language strings are considered candidates and 
the committer can check the strings into SVN. They are included in dev 
snapshots as candidate translations, but they are not yet included 
in releases yet. 
That will result in very long delays cause you're in effect doing the 
same job twice and I can't see a language like Gaelic or Bambara being 
very high up anyone's list of priorities.


d) We have some sort of community review procedure. We rely on native 
speakers to test the translations.


And how do you identify native speakers? Especially for smaller 
languages, localization work is often done by fluent learners anyway, 
it's just the sociolinguistics of the small languages.


We probably need a proactive RTC rather than lazy consensus. So maybe 
we just wait until we get 3 +1's votes from volunteers who have tested 
the translation. When we have that, then the translation becomes 
approved rather than candidate.


Again, that dooms small languages. How many times do I need to repeat 
that with all the pushing in the world, small languages usually consist 
of a team of 1, maybe two. If I had to wait for 2+ votes on any Gaelic 
localization I've been involved in, I'd still be waiting for a release. 
Two years on, I have a team of two who will, if they have the time, 
install a pre-release and do some light testing and I already consider 
myself lucky having them.


May I ask why you're trying so hard to change a model that worked 
reasonably well before?


Michael

Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server


On Mar 10, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

 On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
 Hi Rob,
 
 My comments are meant to supplement and enhance your thoughts on measuring 
 merit.
 
 On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
 
 On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Michael Bauer f...@akerbeltz.org wrote:
 
 09/03/2012 21:22, sgrìobh Rob Weir:
 
 OK. I think we have a volunteer project admin for the AOO Pootle project.
 That is Raphael, right?
 
 As an l10n admin you mean? Which would be fine. However, a single person
 can't realistically be admin to oversee all language projects from a
 linguistic point of view. While many of us can handle more than one
 language, there's no one that can handle all of them.
 
 Most of us are not familiar with how it was handled before, so it is
 good to discuss the details, so we all understand it.
 
 Which is why I suggested that the interested/involved parties sign up for
 accounts over on the LibreOffice Pootle server just so they see how it
 works. I *don't know* all the technicalities of how Pootle works either.
 
 
 I am more interested in a high level understanding of the roles, etc.
 The technical details of the exotic is something else, how we extract
 strings from the build, using different tools and formats, convert
 them to SDF, then to PO, then translate, then back to PO and then to
 SDF and to resource files.
 
 
 Right now it is configured so all Apache committers can login and have
 review and commit rights.  Non-logged in users (everyone else) can
 view, suggest and submit translations.
 
 What are we missing?
 
 Would it work, for example, if the translation leads become Apache
 committers?
 
 
 This is all making localization of OO unnecessarily complicated. Looking at
 it another way - is there a way of separating the signup and rights
 management of Pootle on Apache from the rest of the rights management on
 Apache? All the necessary localization tools and processes are there within
 Pootle. The only problem we're facing is that the only signup and rights
 management path at the moment is via the standard Apache signup etc. We 
 need
 to make the two separate.
 
 
 Certainly Apache projects understand the need for there to be
 contributors as well as committers.  We have many systems where
 anyone, even on their first day in the project, can contribute. For
 example, the wiki, the forums,submitting patches for the website, even
 patches for the code.  None of these require being a committer.
 
 However, submitting strings for localization is something that
 requires more consideration than just updating a wiki page.  These
 strings eventually become part of Apache releases, so we need to make
 sure these contributions are given more attention.  At the very least
 I think they require:
 
 1) We know who made the contribution.  This is good from IP
 perspective, but also from a community perspective.  Contributors
 should get recognition for their work.  If they can only contribute
 anonymously, this is a problem.  It also hinders the PMC from
 recognizing active contributors and offering them committer rights.
 
 2) We need the translations to be contributed under the Apache 2.0
 license. This does not necessarily require a signed iCLA.  It could be
 done with a proper notice on the Pootle server.
 
 3) We need some mechanism for a Committer to review and commit
 contributed translations.  This doesn't necessarily mean that we must
 have committers that can read 110 different languages.  But it does
 mean that we need a process that a Committer can follow to ensure that
 the translations are of sufficient quality to be included in a
 release. An example of such a process could be:
 
 a) Committer verifies the origin of the translation strings,e.g., they
 came from Pootle server from known contributors.
 
 b) Committer verifies the integrity and completeness of the
 translation.  In other words, whatever can be checked by tools without
 understanding the underlying language.  If an automated smoke test can
 be executed to verify that the strings don't break the build, then we
 should do that as well at this stage.
 
 c) At this point the language strings are considered candidates and
 the committer can check the strings into SVN.  They are included in
 dev snapshots as candidate translations, but they are not yet
 included in releases yet.
 
 d) We have some sort of community review procedure.  We rely on native
 speakers to test the translations.  We probably need a proactive RTC
 rather than lazy consensus.  So maybe we just wait until we get 3 +1's
 votes from volunteers who have tested the translation.  When we have
 that, then the translation becomes approved rather than candidate.
 
 Would something like the above work?  In this process there is no
 formal leader for a given language.  But in practice the leader
 emerges from their actions and the recognition that others working on
 that language give them.  It

Re: Where are the legacy stylesheets?


Dave Fisher wrote:

If you manipulate your /etc/hosts to change dns you can recover these
assets and then check them into ooo-site to repair your site or take
ML actions.


Thanks, it worked for me! I was able to send a shutdown notice to legacy 
mailing lists and disable them gracefully before the servers are 
switched off in a few days.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Michael Bauer f...@akerbeltz.org wrote:
 10/03/2012 08:45 sgrìobh Rob Weir

 1) We know who made the contribution. This is good from IP perspective,
 but also from a community perspective. Contributors should get recognition
 for their work. If they can only contribute anonymously, this is a problem.
 It also hinders the PMC from recognizing active contributors and offering
 them committer rights.

 shrugs that never seems to have been a problem previously. There usually
 are many more translators, some who contribute only one or two translations,
 than can be listed.


I think, as a policy, we should credit all translators, unless they
wish to omitted.

But from the IP perspective, I don't think we can be accepting
anonymous (e..g, non-logged in users) submitting translations for
inclusion into Apache releases.  This is not a matter of review.  It
is a question of origin of the translations.  For example, an
anonymous user could accidentally and innocently contribute
translations from LibreOffice, not knowing that the license is not
compatible.  But if we don't know who is actually doing the
contributions, we have no easy way of contacting them to explain the
issue.  On the other hand, a translator might legitimately contribute
their own translations to both projects.  But if they are anonymous,
we have no way of telling the difference between these two cases.

 3) We need some mechanism for a Committer to review and commit contributed
 translations. This doesn't necessarily mean that we must have committers
 that can read 110 different languages. But it does mean that we need a
 process that a Committer can follow to ensure that the translations are of
 sufficient quality to be included in a release. An example of such a process
 could be:

 a) Committer verifies the origin of the translation strings,e.g., they
 came from Pootle server from known contributors.

 That doesn't ensure anything. I could regularly contribue stuff that looks
 very much like, say, Navajo but no one has any way of knowing if it's good
 or bad if I'm the only one providing Navajo transalations.


That's why I suggested the committee review phase, described later.

 c) At this point the language strings are considered candidates and the
 committer can check the strings into SVN. They are included in dev snapshots
 as candidate translations, but they are not yet included in releases yet.

 That will result in very long delays cause you're in effect doing the same
 job twice and I can't see a language like Gaelic or Bambara being very high
 up anyone's list of priorities.


Is it a duplicate to have developers do smoke tests and unit tests,
and QA run formal tests and also have users report bugs during a beta
release?  Does it slow us down?  Yes, of course this is redundant,
duplicate effort.  And it takes time.  But it all goes toward
improving the quality of what we deliver.  So I make no apologies for
review work.


 d) We have some sort of community review procedure. We rely on native
 speakers to test the translations.

 And how do you identify native speakers? Especially for smaller languages,
 localization work is often done by fluent learners anyway, it's just the
 sociolinguistics of the small languages.


From users, I hope.

Remember, even with widespread languages like Spanish we find errors.
 For example, the issue with reversed icon set names.  This isn't a
question of fluency.  It is merely a fact that in knowledge work of
any kind there is an error rate of 1-5%. This is true of coding,
translating, even testing.  We can't prevent it entirely.  All we can
do is account for it in the process.


 We probably need a proactive RTC rather than lazy consensus. So maybe we
 just wait until we get 3 +1's votes from volunteers who have tested the
 translation. When we have that, then the translation becomes approved
 rather than candidate.

 Again, that dooms small languages. How many times do I need to repeat that
 with all the pushing in the world, small languages usually consist of a team
 of 1, maybe two. If I had to wait for 2+ votes on any Gaelic localization
 I've been involved in, I'd still be waiting for a release. Two years on, I
 have a team of two who will, if they have the time, install a pre-release
 and do some light testing and I already consider myself lucky having them.


That's fine.  When Armin wrote the new SVG code, that was a team of
one doing the coding.  But we found others to help test the results.
We might have only one person on the project who translate Gaelic, but
I hope we can find 2-3 users who are willing to download a candidate
language pack and give us feedback on it.   I think it is part of the
responsibility for a translator of less-used languages to find their
own reviewers from the broader user community.

 May I ask why you're trying so hard to change a model that worked reasonably
 well before?


Actually, I'm trying to find a solution that will make

Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server

2012-03-10 Thread Paolo Pozzan


Il 09/03/2012 22:22, Rob Weir ha scritto:

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Michael Bauerf...@akerbeltz.org  wrote:

[cut]

2) Allow account creating as on other Pootle servers without any hoops to
jump through other than the usual signup process.

In essence, handle Pootle and l10n as it was handled before.



Most of us are not familiar with how it was handled before, so it is
good to discuss the details, so we all understand it.

Right now it is configured so all Apache committers can login and have
review and commit rights.  Non-logged in users (everyone else) can
view, suggest and submit translations.


It's not useful to give causal contributors write access to 
translations: they usually don't know what writing style to follow and 
don't know the correct terminology. This will only mess up things or 
give more work to do to the translators. Please don't let submit rights 
to non-logged users.



What are we missing?

Would it work, for example, if the translation leads become Apache committers?


I think it can work. Better yet: back in OOo days various teams were 
able to choose between pootle or direct SDF submission (as Claudio 
said). Maybe in this phase of reorganization it would be helpful for the 
teams to choose their preferred method.


Paolo

Re: OpenOffice.org email forwarder shutdown: That time is now


On 02/03/2012 Rob Weir wrote:

Are there any other places we should post this information to?
Legacy dev/user/discuss lists?  phpBB Forums?  Any NLC's?  If anyone
can help broadening the reach of this information, it would help avoid
surprises when March 15th comes.


I informed the Italian mailing list, but the only subscriber using a 
@openoffice.org address was me, so as far as mailing lists are concerned 
we have no problems.



3) Open a JIRA issue with Infra on a custom bounce notification

Done:  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-4506


It would be good that the notification contained a link to a wiki page 
where we can specify the new addresses to be used not only for mailing 
lists, but also for personal aliases: if we are really concerned about 
security, then place it in a public space where only committers have 
write access, like the main website. This would allow for localization 
of the shutdown notice and would help users.


Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: AOO timeline of accomplishments

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
 On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Carl Marcum cmar...@apache.org wrote:
 On 03/08/2012 05:09 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

 On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org  wrote:

 I am working on a blog post that will feature a timeline showing what
 we have accomplished since the project has started.  Obviously a
 timeline is based on dates and events.  The ones have so far are here.


 Here is what I have so far:

 http://www.robweir.com/AOO.png

 snip


 Very nice Rob. Thanks for putting this together.


 Thank, everyone for the feedback.  I'm trying to include as much of it as I 
 can.


A draft blog post using the timeline to make a point about our
migration efforts:

https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=an_apache_openoffice_timeline

It is worth noting, as we retire the last of the Oracle servers next
Friday, how much we've accomplished.

-Rob



 I just thought of another data point that we could include:

 Apache Software Foundation created:  March 25th, 1999

 Seems fair, since other projects are in the practice of claiming code
 contributions that were made far before their project's existed.

 -Rob

 Best regards,
 Carl

Re: AOO timeline of accomplishments


On 10/03/2012 Rob Weir wrote:

A draft blog post using the timeline to make a point about our
migration efforts:
https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=an_apache_openoffice_timeline


Nice. A few observations:
- Check has the timeline above shows
- Now that I notice, the New Color Picker is not that interesting in 
strategic terms. It is a nice feature and very good to have, but it was 
contributed to other projects before, so it's not something peculiar to 
Apache OpenOffice.
- I would include links to all resources you list in the paragraph 
includes mailing lists, support forums, wikis, bug databases...


Regards,
  Andrea.

RE: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server

2012-03-10 Thread Gavin McDonald

 -Original Message-
 From: Paolo Pozzan [mailto:pa...@z2z.it]
 Sent: Sunday, 11 March 2012 7:02 AM
 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
 Subject: Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server

 Il 09/03/2012 22:22, Rob Weir ha scritto:
  On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Michael Bauerf...@akerbeltz.org  wrote:
 [cut]
  2) Allow account creating as on other Pootle servers without any
  hoops to jump through other than the usual signup process.

  In essence, handle Pootle and l10n as it was handled before.

  Most of us are not familiar with how it was handled before, so it is
  good to discuss the details, so we all understand it.

  Right now it is configured so all Apache committers can login and have
  review and commit rights.  Non-logged in users (everyone else) can
  view, suggest and submit translations.

 It's not useful to give causal contributors write access to
 translations: they usually don't know what writing style to follow and don't
 know the correct terminology. This will only mess up things or give more
 work to do to the translators. Please don't let submit rights to non-logged
 users.

In your mind, what do you think 'submit rights' mean?

To me it means submit a translation for approval by a committer, without such
approval it does nothing and harms nothing. Why are you against such actions
whilst the rest of the people in this thread are trying to open up access even 
more?

Gav...

  What are we missing?

  Would it work, for example, if the translation leads become Apache
 committers?

 I think it can work. Better yet: back in OOo days various teams were able to
 choose between pootle or direct SDF submission (as Claudio said). Maybe in
 this phase of reorganization it would be helpful for the teams to choose their
 preferred method.

 Paolo

Re: AOO timeline of accomplishments

2012-03-10 Thread TJ Frazier


On 3/10/2012 17:59, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

On 10/03/2012 Rob Weir wrote:

A draft blog post using the timeline to make a point about our
migration efforts:
https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=an_apache_openoffice_timeline



Nice. A few observations:
- Check has the timeline above shows
- Now that I notice, the New Color Picker is not that interesting in
strategic terms. It is a nice feature and very good to have, but it was
contributed to other projects before, so it's not something peculiar to
Apache OpenOffice.
- I would include links to all resources you list in the paragraph
includes mailing lists, support forums, wikis, bug databases...

Regards,
Andrea.


Nice, indeed. I concur on links and s/has/as/, plus you might check the 
order of the legend against the order of the plots.


AOO's Chart module could probably be extended to produce a diagram like 
this, as a type of XY (scatter) chart.


/tj/

Re: Bundling extensions as blobs


On 02/03/2012 Herbert Duerr wrote:

On this note I extended the spectrum of possibilities by providing a
configuration option named --with-bundled-extension-blobs. As the name
suggests it allows to bundle extensions exactly as the same blobs which
were approved for re-distribution. When OpenOffice is run they then get
installed automatically.


This is a very nice new feature. It also shows that OpenOffice is not 
focused on itself only, but is providing a friendlier interface for 
downstream distributors to package features.


Thanks for adding it,
  Andrea.

codesnippets.services.openoffice.org ?

http://codesnippets.services.openoffice.org

With the shut down of the remaining Oracle servers on Friday, do we
have a plan for at least archiving the contents of this website?

-Rob

Re: codesnippets.services.openoffice.org ?

Rob,

This site is not hosted by oracle.

It is another third party.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 10, 2012, at 6:00 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:

 http://codesnippets.services.openoffice.org
 
 With the shut down of the remaining Oracle servers on Friday, do we
 have a plan for at least archiving the contents of this website?
 
 -Rob

Re: codesnippets.services.openoffice.org ?