Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Juan C. Sanz wrote: > El 08/06/2012 1:22, Rob Weir escribió: > >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton 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 > wrote: >> >> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: >>> >>> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt > > wrote: On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > > On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt > > wrote: >> >> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >>> >>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr 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. > >>>
RE: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
On the June Status report thread, Ross raises this concern: "The issue here should not be a different class of contributor it should be how to facilitate a different type of contribution and thus bootstrap their involvement in the project. Please don't create an artificial layer of hierarchy in order to do that. Hierarchy in an open development project is bad." Good point. As Dave Fisher and others have remarked, the desire is for a work flow that facilitate/expedites attributable contributions from non-committers that matters. It appears that the list is coming up with useful ideas for the case of Pootle and translators. - Dennis PS: I am not so certain that "Hierarchy in an open development project is bad" is a universal truth. I do appreciate that The Apache Way toward sustainable projects demands a non-hierarchical approach. That is not without its own challenges [;<). -Original Message- From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgard...@opendirective.com] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 23:58 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: *DRAFT FINAL* June board report I'm a little concerned about this idea of AOO being somehow different from other Apache projects. Its not, its just software. In Apache projects everyone is equal. If someone earns merit they earn merit, it makes no difference how that merit is earned. The issue here should not be a different class of contributor it should be how to facilitate a different type of contribution and thus bootstrap their involvement in the project. Please don't create an artificial layer of hierarchy in order to do that. Hierarchy in an open development project is bad. Note we have a VP who has never written a line of code in their life. As far as I'm aware they have never written a translation string or any documentation. Despite this there was no need to create a new class of community member to bring them into the ASF. I propose the problem is in the workflow not in the structure of ASF projects. If that is the case then we need to examine why non-committer translators are unable to contribute efficiently. Find out why our default policies say they need to be committees and address that issue. For example, are contributions to Pootle any different to patches sent via JIR# from an IP point of view? If not then there is no need for an ICLA but there is a need for an audit trail. Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Jun 7, 2012 11:30 PM, "Kay Schenk" wrote:
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
El 08/06/2012 1:22, Rob Weir escribió: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton 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 wrote: On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr 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? +1 But as far as I can remember it didn't work properly http://markmail.org/message/kahew2uqvrzmf4ag?q=list:org%2Eapache%2Eincubator%2Eooo-dev+pootle+suggestion
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
On 6/8/12 9:09 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > My question is "is it necessary". See my overlapping post. > > Essentially, why is it perceived that an iCLA is needed for initial > contributions via Pootle. Aren't they roughly equivalent to patches via > bugzilla? Shouldn't we be working on the workflow to ensure contribution is > as easy as possible? > +1, easy as possible is key here because we want to attract as much as possible volunteers. Juergen > Ross > > Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. > On Jun 8, 2012 12:08 AM, "Dave Fisher" wrote: > >> >> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton >> 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 wrote: > On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: >> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr 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.
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
My question is "is it necessary". See my overlapping post. Essentially, why is it perceived that an iCLA is needed for initial contributions via Pootle. Aren't they roughly equivalent to patches via bugzilla? Shouldn't we be working on the workflow to ensure contribution is as easy as possible? Ross Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Jun 8, 2012 12:08 AM, "Dave Fisher" wrote: > > On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton >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 > >> wrote: > >>> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt > >> wrote: > > On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > >> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt > >> wrote: > >>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr 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/proje
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
On Jun 7, 2012, at 5:50 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >> >> On Jun 7, 2012, at 4:30 PM, RGB ES wrote: >> >>> 2012/6/8 Rob Weir : On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton >> 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 >>> wrote: On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt >>> wrote: >> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >>> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt >>> wrote: On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr 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 c
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > On Jun 7, 2012, at 4:30 PM, RGB ES wrote: > >> 2012/6/8 Rob Weir : >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton > 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 >> wrote: >>> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt >> wrote: > On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt >> wrote: >>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr 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/ >>
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
On Jun 7, 2012, at 4:30 PM, RGB ES wrote: > 2012/6/8 Rob Weir : >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton 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 > wrote: >> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: >>> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt > wrote: On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt > wrote: >> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr 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 Jue
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
2012/6/8 Rob Weir : > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >> >> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton >>> 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 wrote: > On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: >> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr 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 acce
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton 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 >>> wrote: On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt >>> wrote: >> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >>> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt >>> wrote: On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr 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 co
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton >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 > >> wrote: > >>> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt > >> wrote: > > On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > >> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt > >> wrote: > >>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr 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 pootl
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton 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 >> wrote: >>> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt >> wrote: > On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt >> wrote: >>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr 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" 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
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton 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 > wrote: > > On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > >> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt > wrote: > >>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt > wrote: > > On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > >> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr 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. > 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 wa
