You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org> on 2012/06/07 19:24:30 UTC
[DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
+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:robweir@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
<jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working with pootle
>>>>>>> currently requires committership, which results in translators having having
>>>>>>> to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list. The board needs to
>>>>>>> decide if this short-circuiting of the process is desirable or not and what
>>>>>>> the alternatives are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to the project to define its
>>>>>> own expectations of committers.
>>>>>
>>>>> it's a very bad limitation. I would prefer a user management which
>>>>> allows registration (by email verification) of new users and where new
>>>>> users agree to contribute under the Apache license. Maybe combined with
>>>>> an iCLA but not necessarily require to be committer.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I am not sure if something like that would be possible at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and hope that we can
>>>>> reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together with them on
>>>>> a fast-track.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that the limitation suboptimal.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest someone take this up with legal-discuss@ If legal@ feel able
>>>> to approve a more relaxed approach to iCLAs for access to Pootle then
>>>> infra@ can be asked to find a technical solution.
>>>
>>> I agree and thanks to remind me that I should take the appropriate
>>> action to address things like that ;-)
>>
>> Careful with the "I" - madness lies that way ;-)
>>
>> This is the perfect opportunity for someone lurking here to make an
>> early and potentially very significant contribution. Shepherding these
>> kinds of actions takes time away from those embedded in the coding.
>> It's a good way to earn merit while you figure out where to contribute
>> to the project. If someone like that is reading but not sure how to
>> proceed I'm sure others will help guide you.
>
> I agree but the idea is not really new and nothing happened so far ;-)
>
> Thinking more about it I would like to discuss a new term "Apache
> contributor" where users can register for an user account by accepting
> that all their contributions are under ALv2. The verification can be by
> email verification and the iCLA can be required as well (details have to
> be defined). With such accounts people would get access to more pubic
> wikis (like our user wiki), tools like Pootle, bugzilla etc.
>
The "contributor" role at Apache already handles this. A contributor
can already register in Bugzilla, post patches, register in the wiki,
contribute documentation, etc.
What a contributor cannot do is directly modify the product code in
SVN. So they are in RTC mode with respect to product code, including
translations.
I think the disconnect here is we only have an anonymous method for
contributors to add translations to Pootle. I can see the
justification for requiring non-committers to submit translations as
patches in BZ or via suggestions in Pootle. But the anonymous part of
this is completely wrong, both from community and from legal
standpoint.
For example, those who contribute to Pootle, anonymously, see their
contributions marked as being from "nobody" in the UI:
https://translate.apache.org/projects/OOo_34/
Isn't that rather insulting?
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
> The difference between contributors and committers would be that only
> committers get the @apache.org email address.
>
> I think that a such lightweight user could be useful and the license
> question of their contributions would be clear form the beginning.
>
> Juergen
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Juan C. Sanz <ju...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> El 08/06/2012 1:22, Rob Weir escribió:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>>>> <or...@apache.org>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 on this discussion so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, the anonymous contribution to pootle is a no-no.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Dennis
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: Changing to the [DISCUSS] that is called for and to have it be
>>>>> visible.
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@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
>>>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working with
>>>>>
>>>>> pootle
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> currently requires committership, which results in translators
>>>>>
>>>>> having having
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list. The
>>>>>
>>>>> board needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> decide if this short-circuiting of the process is desirable or
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>
>>>>> and what
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the alternatives are.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to the project
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>> define its
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> own expectations of committers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it's a very bad limitation. I would prefer a user management which
>>>>>>>>>> allows registration (by email verification) of new users and where
>>>>>
>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> users agree to contribute under the Apache license. Maybe combined
>>>>>
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> an iCLA but not necessarily require to be committer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But I am not sure if something like that would be possible at all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and hope that
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>
>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together with
>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a fast-track.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree that the limitation suboptimal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suggest someone take this up with legal-discuss@ If legal@ feel
>>>>>
>>>>> able
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to approve a more relaxed approach to iCLAs for access to Pootle
>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>> infra@ can be asked to find a technical solution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree and thanks to remind me that I should take the appropriate
>>>>>>>> action to address things like that ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Careful with the "I" - madness lies that way ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the perfect opportunity for someone lurking here to make an
>>>>>>> early and potentially very significant contribution. Shepherding
>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>> kinds of actions takes time away from those embedded in the coding.
>>>>>>> It's a good way to earn merit while you figure out where to
>>>>>>> contribute
>>>>>>> to the project. If someone like that is reading but not sure how to
>>>>>>> proceed I'm sure others will help guide you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree but the idea is not really new and nothing happened so far ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thinking more about it I would like to discuss a new term "Apache
>>>>>> contributor" where users can register for an user account by accepting
>>>>>> that all their contributions are under ALv2. The verification can be
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> email verification and the iCLA can be required as well (details have
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> be defined). With such accounts people would get access to more pubic
>>>>>> wikis (like our user wiki), tools like Pootle, bugzilla etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The "contributor" role at Apache already handles this. A contributor
>>>>> can already register in Bugzilla, post patches, register in the wiki,
>>>>> contribute documentation, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> What a contributor cannot do is directly modify the product code in
>>>>> SVN. So they are in RTC mode with respect to product code, including
>>>>> translations.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the disconnect here is we only have an anonymous method for
>>>>> contributors to add translations to Pootle. I can see the
>>>>> justification for requiring non-committers to submit translations as
>>>>> patches in BZ or via suggestions in Pootle. But the anonymous part of
>>>>> this is completely wrong, both from community and from legal
>>>>> standpoint.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, those who contribute to Pootle, anonymously, see their
>>>>> contributions marked as being from "nobody" in the UI:
>>>>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/OOo_34/
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't that rather insulting?
>>>>>
>>>> [reposted since I didn't see this topic change]
>>>>
>>>> yes, it is...I thought Juergen was suggesting that some special
>>>> submission
>>>> access if you will be granted to the Pootle server.
>>>
>>> As in we would like to be able to allow people with an iCLA on file to
>>> register for access to the pootle server.
>>>
>>> We can call these people "invited translators"
>>>
>> Why not allow that to everyone? I'm trying to see what harm would
>> come from that? No one needs special permission to enter a BZ issue
>> and attach a patch. Why can't someone log into Pootle and enter a
>> suggestion? Is there a technical reason why this is not happening?
>
> +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
>
So we fix the technical problem, right? My main point is it seems
premature to take this to legal-discuss, the IPMC, etc., if all that
is needed is a quick chat with Infra.
-Rob
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
Posted by "Juan C. Sanz" <ju...@hotmail.com>.
El 08/06/2012 1:22, Rob Weir escribió:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 on this discussion so far.
>>>>
>>>> I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
>>>>
>>>> Also, the anonymous contribution to pootle is a no-no.
>>>>
>>>> - Dennis
>>>>
>>>> PS: Changing to the [DISCUSS] that is called for and to have it be visible.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@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
>>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working with
>>>> pootle
>>>>>>>>>>> currently requires committership, which results in translators
>>>> having having
>>>>>>>>>>> to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list. The
>>>> board needs to
>>>>>>>>>>> decide if this short-circuiting of the process is desirable or not
>>>> and what
>>>>>>>>>>> the alternatives are.
>>>>>>>>>> No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to the project to
>>>> define its
>>>>>>>>>> own expectations of committers.
>>>>>>>>> it's a very bad limitation. I would prefer a user management which
>>>>>>>>> allows registration (by email verification) of new users and where
>>>> new
>>>>>>>>> users agree to contribute under the Apache license. Maybe combined
>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> an iCLA but not necessarily require to be committer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I am not sure if something like that would be possible at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and hope that we
>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together with them
>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> a fast-track.
>>>>>>>> I agree that the limitation suboptimal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suggest someone take this up with legal-discuss@ If legal@ feel
>>>> able
>>>>>>>> to approve a more relaxed approach to iCLAs for access to Pootle then
>>>>>>>> infra@ can be asked to find a technical solution.
>>>>>>> I agree and thanks to remind me that I should take the appropriate
>>>>>>> action to address things like that ;-)
>>>>>> Careful with the "I" - madness lies that way ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the perfect opportunity for someone lurking here to make an
>>>>>> early and potentially very significant contribution. Shepherding these
>>>>>> kinds of actions takes time away from those embedded in the coding.
>>>>>> It's a good way to earn merit while you figure out where to contribute
>>>>>> to the project. If someone like that is reading but not sure how to
>>>>>> proceed I'm sure others will help guide you.
>>>>> I agree but the idea is not really new and nothing happened so far ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thinking more about it I would like to discuss a new term "Apache
>>>>> contributor" where users can register for an user account by accepting
>>>>> that all their contributions are under ALv2. The verification can be by
>>>>> email verification and the iCLA can be required as well (details have to
>>>>> be defined). With such accounts people would get access to more pubic
>>>>> wikis (like our user wiki), tools like Pootle, bugzilla etc.
>>>>>
>>>> The "contributor" role at Apache already handles this. A contributor
>>>> can already register in Bugzilla, post patches, register in the wiki,
>>>> contribute documentation, etc.
>>>>
>>>> What a contributor cannot do is directly modify the product code in
>>>> SVN. So they are in RTC mode with respect to product code, including
>>>> translations.
>>>>
>>>> I think the disconnect here is we only have an anonymous method for
>>>> contributors to add translations to Pootle. I can see the
>>>> justification for requiring non-committers to submit translations as
>>>> patches in BZ or via suggestions in Pootle. But the anonymous part of
>>>> this is completely wrong, both from community and from legal
>>>> standpoint.
>>>>
>>>> For example, those who contribute to Pootle, anonymously, see their
>>>> contributions marked as being from "nobody" in the UI:
>>>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/OOo_34/
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that rather insulting?
>>>>
>>> [reposted since I didn't see this topic change]
>>>
>>> yes, it is...I thought Juergen was suggesting that some special submission
>>> access if you will be granted to the Pootle server.
>> As in we would like to be able to allow people with an iCLA on file to register for access to the pootle server.
>>
>> We can call these people "invited translators"
>>
> Why not allow that to everyone? I'm trying to see what harm would
> come from that? No one needs special permission to enter a BZ issue
> and attach a patch. Why can't someone log into Pootle and enter a
> suggestion? Is there a technical reason why this is not happening?
+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
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
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:rgardler@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" <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jun 7, 2012, at 5:50 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2012, at 4:30 PM, RGB ES wrote:
>>
>>> 2012/6/8 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1 on this discussion so far.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, the anonymous contribution to pootle is a no-no.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Dennis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PS: Changing to the [DISCUSS] that is called for and to have it be visible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@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
>>>>>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working with
>>>>>>> pootle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently requires committership, which results in translators
>>>>>>> having having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list. The
>>>>>>> board needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decide if this short-circuiting of the process is desirable or not
>>>>>>> and what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the alternatives are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to the project to
>>>>>>> define its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> own expectations of committers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a very bad limitation. I would prefer a user management which
>>>>>>>>>>>> allows registration (by email verification) of new users and where
>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>> users agree to contribute under the Apache license. Maybe combined
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> an iCLA but not necessarily require to be committer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But I am not sure if something like that would be possible at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and hope that we
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together with them
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>> a fast-track.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree that the limitation suboptimal.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest someone take this up with legal-discuss@ If legal@ feel
>>>>>>> able
>>>>>>>>>>> to approve a more relaxed approach to iCLAs for access to Pootle then
>>>>>>>>>>> infra@ can be asked to find a technical solution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree and thanks to remind me that I should take the appropriate
>>>>>>>>>> action to address things like that ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Careful with the "I" - madness lies that way ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the perfect opportunity for someone lurking here to make an
>>>>>>>>> early and potentially very significant contribution. Shepherding these
>>>>>>>>> kinds of actions takes time away from those embedded in the coding.
>>>>>>>>> It's a good way to earn merit while you figure out where to contribute
>>>>>>>>> to the project. If someone like that is reading but not sure how to
>>>>>>>>> proceed I'm sure others will help guide you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree but the idea is not really new and nothing happened so far ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thinking more about it I would like to discuss a new term "Apache
>>>>>>>> contributor" where users can register for an user account by accepting
>>>>>>>> that all their contributions are under ALv2. The verification can be by
>>>>>>>> email verification and the iCLA can be required as well (details have to
>>>>>>>> be defined). With such accounts people would get access to more pubic
>>>>>>>> wikis (like our user wiki), tools like Pootle, bugzilla etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The "contributor" role at Apache already handles this. A contributor
>>>>>>> can already register in Bugzilla, post patches, register in the wiki,
>>>>>>> contribute documentation, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What a contributor cannot do is directly modify the product code in
>>>>>>> SVN. So they are in RTC mode with respect to product code, including
>>>>>>> translations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the disconnect here is we only have an anonymous method for
>>>>>>> contributors to add translations to Pootle. I can see the
>>>>>>> justification for requiring non-committers to submit translations as
>>>>>>> patches in BZ or via suggestions in Pootle. But the anonymous part of
>>>>>>> this is completely wrong, both from community and from legal
>>>>>>> standpoint.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example, those who contribute to Pootle, anonymously, see their
>>>>>>> contributions marked as being from "nobody" in the UI:
>>>>>>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/OOo_34/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Isn't that rather insulting?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [reposted since I didn't see this topic change]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes, it is...I thought Juergen was suggesting that some special submission
>>>>>> access if you will be granted to the Pootle server.
>>>>>
>>>>> As in we would like to be able to allow people with an iCLA on file to register for access to the pootle server.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can call these people "invited translators"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why not allow that to everyone? I'm trying to see what harm would
>>>> come from that? No one needs special permission to enter a BZ issue
>>>> and attach a patch. Why can't someone log into Pootle and enter a
>>>> suggestion? Is there a technical reason why this is not happening?
>>>>
>>>
>>> AFAIK, right now accept suggestions is not working but once this
>>> problem is solved I think that "opening" the system so anyone can
>>> issue a suggestion is really good: the analogy with BZ is just
>>> perfect.
>>
>> Let's think of my idea as a possible compromise depending on what concerns Infrastructure has with opening up pootle. Recall we are not the only project using this resource.
>>
>
> So long as your idea is to allowed logged in users to offer
> suggestions, then fine. That is what RGB and I are say as well.
It is all about finding some way short of committer status to allow translators to make attributable contributions. To go for less is trivializing the effort.
So, I'm not ignoring the rest of this thread. It is a good argument. I am looking for the simplest transition. Raphael B and Jürgen have worked with Pootle perhaps they can say something about what effort is needed to manage the pootle server from the PPMC side - the TC of the RTC.
How much would user management add?
Regards,
Dave
>
> But let's not reduce our view of the task of translation to such a
> level that we think this is a job that is trivial. It is difficult,
> requires skill, and more skill than just knowing another language. It
> can be done well, and it can be done poorly. As such this skill
> should be demonstrated and observed within the community within a RTC
> environment before committership (free access to CRT) is offered.
> We should be as concerned with quality here as with any other part of
> the product. As with code, some merit might be earned from effort on
> the legacy project. But I don't think we solve any real problem by
> giving open access to CTR.
>
> So I don't see this at all as being a Infra question. And it has
> nothing to do with the iCLA. It is more a RTC versus CTR question
> regarding core content of a release. If someone has demonstrated
> merit, then we could make them a committer. If they have not, then
> their contributions should be RTC. I'm hoping that can be RTC with
> some sort of identity so we can track who they are and what their
> contributions have been.
>
> Yes, finding a reviewer for some languages might be difficult.
> Finding good reviewers for critical sections of multi-threaded C++
> code is hard as well. But we don't solve that problem by letting
> non-committers check in multi-threaded C++ code without a review
> because we think finding a reviewer is hard.
>
> And remember, translation requires PO files, but it does not require
> Pootle. Contributors who are new to the project can work off-line
> with the PO files, and submit translations via attachments to BZ
> issues. They can demonstrate merit and then be voted in as
> committers.
>
>> So, maybe we let Jürgen deal with Infrastructure about what's possible.
>>
>> I'll comment on it during the IPMC review on general@i.a.o.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Ricardo
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2012, at 4:30 PM, RGB ES wrote:
>
>> 2012/6/8 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>:
>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 on this discussion so far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, the anonymous contribution to pootle is a no-no.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Dennis
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS: Changing to the [DISCUSS] that is called for and to have it be visible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@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
>>>>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working with
>>>>>> pootle
>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently requires committership, which results in translators
>>>>>> having having
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list. The
>>>>>> board needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decide if this short-circuiting of the process is desirable or not
>>>>>> and what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the alternatives are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to the project to
>>>>>> define its
>>>>>>>>>>>> own expectations of committers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> it's a very bad limitation. I would prefer a user management which
>>>>>>>>>>> allows registration (by email verification) of new users and where
>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>> users agree to contribute under the Apache license. Maybe combined
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> an iCLA but not necessarily require to be committer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But I am not sure if something like that would be possible at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and hope that we
>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together with them
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> a fast-track.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree that the limitation suboptimal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I suggest someone take this up with legal-discuss@ If legal@ feel
>>>>>> able
>>>>>>>>>> to approve a more relaxed approach to iCLAs for access to Pootle then
>>>>>>>>>> infra@ can be asked to find a technical solution.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree and thanks to remind me that I should take the appropriate
>>>>>>>>> action to address things like that ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Careful with the "I" - madness lies that way ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the perfect opportunity for someone lurking here to make an
>>>>>>>> early and potentially very significant contribution. Shepherding these
>>>>>>>> kinds of actions takes time away from those embedded in the coding.
>>>>>>>> It's a good way to earn merit while you figure out where to contribute
>>>>>>>> to the project. If someone like that is reading but not sure how to
>>>>>>>> proceed I'm sure others will help guide you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree but the idea is not really new and nothing happened so far ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thinking more about it I would like to discuss a new term "Apache
>>>>>>> contributor" where users can register for an user account by accepting
>>>>>>> that all their contributions are under ALv2. The verification can be by
>>>>>>> email verification and the iCLA can be required as well (details have to
>>>>>>> be defined). With such accounts people would get access to more pubic
>>>>>>> wikis (like our user wiki), tools like Pootle, bugzilla etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "contributor" role at Apache already handles this. A contributor
>>>>>> can already register in Bugzilla, post patches, register in the wiki,
>>>>>> contribute documentation, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What a contributor cannot do is directly modify the product code in
>>>>>> SVN. So they are in RTC mode with respect to product code, including
>>>>>> translations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the disconnect here is we only have an anonymous method for
>>>>>> contributors to add translations to Pootle. I can see the
>>>>>> justification for requiring non-committers to submit translations as
>>>>>> patches in BZ or via suggestions in Pootle. But the anonymous part of
>>>>>> this is completely wrong, both from community and from legal
>>>>>> standpoint.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example, those who contribute to Pootle, anonymously, see their
>>>>>> contributions marked as being from "nobody" in the UI:
>>>>>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/OOo_34/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't that rather insulting?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [reposted since I didn't see this topic change]
>>>>>
>>>>> yes, it is...I thought Juergen was suggesting that some special submission
>>>>> access if you will be granted to the Pootle server.
>>>>
>>>> As in we would like to be able to allow people with an iCLA on file to register for access to the pootle server.
>>>>
>>>> We can call these people "invited translators"
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why not allow that to everyone? I'm trying to see what harm would
>>> come from that? No one needs special permission to enter a BZ issue
>>> and attach a patch. Why can't someone log into Pootle and enter a
>>> suggestion? Is there a technical reason why this is not happening?
>>>
>>
>> AFAIK, right now accept suggestions is not working but once this
>> problem is solved I think that "opening" the system so anyone can
>> issue a suggestion is really good: the analogy with BZ is just
>> perfect.
>
> Let's think of my idea as a possible compromise depending on what concerns Infrastructure has with opening up pootle. Recall we are not the only project using this resource.
>
So long as your idea is to allowed logged in users to offer
suggestions, then fine. That is what RGB and I are say as well.
But let's not reduce our view of the task of translation to such a
level that we think this is a job that is trivial. It is difficult,
requires skill, and more skill than just knowing another language. It
can be done well, and it can be done poorly. As such this skill
should be demonstrated and observed within the community within a RTC
environment before committership (free access to CRT) is offered.
We should be as concerned with quality here as with any other part of
the product. As with code, some merit might be earned from effort on
the legacy project. But I don't think we solve any real problem by
giving open access to CTR.
So I don't see this at all as being a Infra question. And it has
nothing to do with the iCLA. It is more a RTC versus CTR question
regarding core content of a release. If someone has demonstrated
merit, then we could make them a committer. If they have not, then
their contributions should be RTC. I'm hoping that can be RTC with
some sort of identity so we can track who they are and what their
contributions have been.
Yes, finding a reviewer for some languages might be difficult.
Finding good reviewers for critical sections of multi-threaded C++
code is hard as well. But we don't solve that problem by letting
non-committers check in multi-threaded C++ code without a review
because we think finding a reviewer is hard.
And remember, translation requires PO files, but it does not require
Pootle. Contributors who are new to the project can work off-line
with the PO files, and submit translations via attachments to BZ
issues. They can demonstrate merit and then be voted in as
committers.
> So, maybe we let Jürgen deal with Infrastructure about what's possible.
>
> I'll comment on it during the IPMC review on general@i.a.o.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>> Regards
>> Ricardo
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jun 7, 2012, at 4:30 PM, RGB ES wrote:
> 2012/6/8 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>:
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 on this discussion so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, the anonymous contribution to pootle is a no-no.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Dennis
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: Changing to the [DISCUSS] that is called for and to have it be visible.
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@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
>>>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working with
>>>>> pootle
>>>>>>>>>>>> currently requires committership, which results in translators
>>>>> having having
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list. The
>>>>> board needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>> decide if this short-circuiting of the process is desirable or not
>>>>> and what
>>>>>>>>>>>> the alternatives are.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to the project to
>>>>> define its
>>>>>>>>>>> own expectations of committers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it's a very bad limitation. I would prefer a user management which
>>>>>>>>>> allows registration (by email verification) of new users and where
>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>> users agree to contribute under the Apache license. Maybe combined
>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> an iCLA but not necessarily require to be committer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But I am not sure if something like that would be possible at all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and hope that we
>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together with them
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> a fast-track.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree that the limitation suboptimal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suggest someone take this up with legal-discuss@ If legal@ feel
>>>>> able
>>>>>>>>> to approve a more relaxed approach to iCLAs for access to Pootle then
>>>>>>>>> infra@ can be asked to find a technical solution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree and thanks to remind me that I should take the appropriate
>>>>>>>> action to address things like that ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Careful with the "I" - madness lies that way ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the perfect opportunity for someone lurking here to make an
>>>>>>> early and potentially very significant contribution. Shepherding these
>>>>>>> kinds of actions takes time away from those embedded in the coding.
>>>>>>> It's a good way to earn merit while you figure out where to contribute
>>>>>>> to the project. If someone like that is reading but not sure how to
>>>>>>> proceed I'm sure others will help guide you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree but the idea is not really new and nothing happened so far ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thinking more about it I would like to discuss a new term "Apache
>>>>>> contributor" where users can register for an user account by accepting
>>>>>> that all their contributions are under ALv2. The verification can be by
>>>>>> email verification and the iCLA can be required as well (details have to
>>>>>> be defined). With such accounts people would get access to more pubic
>>>>>> wikis (like our user wiki), tools like Pootle, bugzilla etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The "contributor" role at Apache already handles this. A contributor
>>>>> can already register in Bugzilla, post patches, register in the wiki,
>>>>> contribute documentation, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> What a contributor cannot do is directly modify the product code in
>>>>> SVN. So they are in RTC mode with respect to product code, including
>>>>> translations.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the disconnect here is we only have an anonymous method for
>>>>> contributors to add translations to Pootle. I can see the
>>>>> justification for requiring non-committers to submit translations as
>>>>> patches in BZ or via suggestions in Pootle. But the anonymous part of
>>>>> this is completely wrong, both from community and from legal
>>>>> standpoint.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, those who contribute to Pootle, anonymously, see their
>>>>> contributions marked as being from "nobody" in the UI:
>>>>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/OOo_34/
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't that rather insulting?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [reposted since I didn't see this topic change]
>>>>
>>>> yes, it is...I thought Juergen was suggesting that some special submission
>>>> access if you will be granted to the Pootle server.
>>>
>>> As in we would like to be able to allow people with an iCLA on file to register for access to the pootle server.
>>>
>>> We can call these people "invited translators"
>>>
>>
>> Why not allow that to everyone? I'm trying to see what harm would
>> come from that? No one needs special permission to enter a BZ issue
>> and attach a patch. Why can't someone log into Pootle and enter a
>> suggestion? Is there a technical reason why this is not happening?
>>
>
> AFAIK, right now accept suggestions is not working but once this
> problem is solved I think that "opening" the system so anyone can
> issue a suggestion is really good: the analogy with BZ is just
> perfect.
Let's think of my idea as a possible compromise depending on what concerns Infrastructure has with opening up pootle. Recall we are not the only project using this resource.
So, maybe we let Jürgen deal with Infrastructure about what's possible.
I'll comment on it during the IPMC review on general@i.a.o.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Regards
> Ricardo
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2012/6/8 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 on this discussion so far.
>>>>
>>>> I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
>>>>
>>>> Also, the anonymous contribution to pootle is a no-no.
>>>>
>>>> - Dennis
>>>>
>>>> PS: Changing to the [DISCUSS] that is called for and to have it be visible.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@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
>>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working with
>>>> pootle
>>>>>>>>>>> currently requires committership, which results in translators
>>>> having having
>>>>>>>>>>> to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list. The
>>>> board needs to
>>>>>>>>>>> decide if this short-circuiting of the process is desirable or not
>>>> and what
>>>>>>>>>>> the alternatives are.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to the project to
>>>> define its
>>>>>>>>>> own expectations of committers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it's a very bad limitation. I would prefer a user management which
>>>>>>>>> allows registration (by email verification) of new users and where
>>>> new
>>>>>>>>> users agree to contribute under the Apache license. Maybe combined
>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> an iCLA but not necessarily require to be committer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I am not sure if something like that would be possible at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and hope that we
>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together with them
>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> a fast-track.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that the limitation suboptimal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suggest someone take this up with legal-discuss@ If legal@ feel
>>>> able
>>>>>>>> to approve a more relaxed approach to iCLAs for access to Pootle then
>>>>>>>> infra@ can be asked to find a technical solution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree and thanks to remind me that I should take the appropriate
>>>>>>> action to address things like that ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Careful with the "I" - madness lies that way ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the perfect opportunity for someone lurking here to make an
>>>>>> early and potentially very significant contribution. Shepherding these
>>>>>> kinds of actions takes time away from those embedded in the coding.
>>>>>> It's a good way to earn merit while you figure out where to contribute
>>>>>> to the project. If someone like that is reading but not sure how to
>>>>>> proceed I'm sure others will help guide you.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree but the idea is not really new and nothing happened so far ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thinking more about it I would like to discuss a new term "Apache
>>>>> contributor" where users can register for an user account by accepting
>>>>> that all their contributions are under ALv2. The verification can be by
>>>>> email verification and the iCLA can be required as well (details have to
>>>>> be defined). With such accounts people would get access to more pubic
>>>>> wikis (like our user wiki), tools like Pootle, bugzilla etc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The "contributor" role at Apache already handles this. A contributor
>>>> can already register in Bugzilla, post patches, register in the wiki,
>>>> contribute documentation, etc.
>>>>
>>>> What a contributor cannot do is directly modify the product code in
>>>> SVN. So they are in RTC mode with respect to product code, including
>>>> translations.
>>>>
>>>> I think the disconnect here is we only have an anonymous method for
>>>> contributors to add translations to Pootle. I can see the
>>>> justification for requiring non-committers to submit translations as
>>>> patches in BZ or via suggestions in Pootle. But the anonymous part of
>>>> this is completely wrong, both from community and from legal
>>>> standpoint.
>>>>
>>>> For example, those who contribute to Pootle, anonymously, see their
>>>> contributions marked as being from "nobody" in the UI:
>>>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/OOo_34/
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that rather insulting?
>>>>
>>>
>>> [reposted since I didn't see this topic change]
>>>
>>> yes, it is...I thought Juergen was suggesting that some special submission
>>> access if you will be granted to the Pootle server.
>>
>> As in we would like to be able to allow people with an iCLA on file to register for access to the pootle server.
>>
>> We can call these people "invited translators"
>>
>
> Why not allow that to everyone? I'm trying to see what harm would
> come from that? No one needs special permission to enter a BZ issue
> and attach a patch. Why can't someone log into Pootle and enter a
> suggestion? Is there a technical reason why this is not happening?
>
AFAIK, right now accept suggestions is not working but once this
problem is solved I think that "opening" the system so anyone can
issue a suggestion is really good: the analogy with BZ is just
perfect.
Regards
Ricardo
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>wrote:
>>
>>> +1 on this discussion so far.
>>>
>>> I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
>>>
>>> Also, the anonymous contribution to pootle is a no-no.
>>>
>>> - Dennis
>>>
>>> PS: Changing to the [DISCUSS] that is called for and to have it be visible.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@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
>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working with
>>> pootle
>>>>>>>>>> currently requires committership, which results in translators
>>> having having
>>>>>>>>>> to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list. The
>>> board needs to
>>>>>>>>>> decide if this short-circuiting of the process is desirable or not
>>> and what
>>>>>>>>>> the alternatives are.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to the project to
>>> define its
>>>>>>>>> own expectations of committers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it's a very bad limitation. I would prefer a user management which
>>>>>>>> allows registration (by email verification) of new users and where
>>> new
>>>>>>>> users agree to contribute under the Apache license. Maybe combined
>>> with
>>>>>>>> an iCLA but not necessarily require to be committer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I am not sure if something like that would be possible at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and hope that we
>>> can
>>>>>>>> reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together with them
>>> on
>>>>>>>> a fast-track.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree that the limitation suboptimal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suggest someone take this up with legal-discuss@ If legal@ feel
>>> able
>>>>>>> to approve a more relaxed approach to iCLAs for access to Pootle then
>>>>>>> infra@ can be asked to find a technical solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree and thanks to remind me that I should take the appropriate
>>>>>> action to address things like that ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Careful with the "I" - madness lies that way ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the perfect opportunity for someone lurking here to make an
>>>>> early and potentially very significant contribution. Shepherding these
>>>>> kinds of actions takes time away from those embedded in the coding.
>>>>> It's a good way to earn merit while you figure out where to contribute
>>>>> to the project. If someone like that is reading but not sure how to
>>>>> proceed I'm sure others will help guide you.
>>>>
>>>> I agree but the idea is not really new and nothing happened so far ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Thinking more about it I would like to discuss a new term "Apache
>>>> contributor" where users can register for an user account by accepting
>>>> that all their contributions are under ALv2. The verification can be by
>>>> email verification and the iCLA can be required as well (details have to
>>>> be defined). With such accounts people would get access to more pubic
>>>> wikis (like our user wiki), tools like Pootle, bugzilla etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The "contributor" role at Apache already handles this. A contributor
>>> can already register in Bugzilla, post patches, register in the wiki,
>>> contribute documentation, etc.
>>>
>>> What a contributor cannot do is directly modify the product code in
>>> SVN. So they are in RTC mode with respect to product code, including
>>> translations.
>>>
>>> I think the disconnect here is we only have an anonymous method for
>>> contributors to add translations to Pootle. I can see the
>>> justification for requiring non-committers to submit translations as
>>> patches in BZ or via suggestions in Pootle. But the anonymous part of
>>> this is completely wrong, both from community and from legal
>>> standpoint.
>>>
>>> For example, those who contribute to Pootle, anonymously, see their
>>> contributions marked as being from "nobody" in the UI:
>>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/OOo_34/
>>>
>>> Isn't that rather insulting?
>>>
>>
>> [reposted since I didn't see this topic change]
>>
>> yes, it is...I thought Juergen was suggesting that some special submission
>> access if you will be granted to the Pootle server.
>
> As in we would like to be able to allow people with an iCLA on file to register for access to the pootle server.
>
> We can call these people "invited translators"
>
Why not allow that to everyone? I'm trying to see what harm would
come from that? No one needs special permission to enter a BZ issue
and attach a patch. Why can't someone log into Pootle and enter a
suggestion? Is there a technical reason why this is not happening?
> 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 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 was alluding to this in a post I made the other
>> day, but didn't specify anything. Using the Pootle server is a perfect
>> example of such a case.
>>
>> Maybe we can take this up with the Board after graduation? -- and see what
>> can be done. I can't imagine that some new methods can't be enacted.
>>
>>
>>>> The difference between contributors and committers would be that only
>>>> committers get the @apache.org email address.
>>>>
>>>> I think that a such lightweight user could be useful and the license
>>>> question of their contributions would be clear form the beginning.
>>>>
>>>> Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>>
>> "Everything will be all right in the end...
>> if it's not all right then it's not the end. "
>> -- Sonny, "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel"
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org
> >wrote:
> >
> >> +1 on this discussion so far.
> >>
> >> I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
> >>
> >> Also, the anonymous contribution to pootle is a no-no.
> >>
> >> - Dennis
> >>
> >> PS: Changing to the [DISCUSS] that is called for and to have it be
> visible.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@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
> >> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>>> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working with
> >> pootle
> >>>>>>>>> currently requires committership, which results in translators
> >> having having
> >>>>>>>>> to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list. The
> >> board needs to
> >>>>>>>>> decide if this short-circuiting of the process is desirable or
> not
> >> and what
> >>>>>>>>> the alternatives are.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to the project
> to
> >> define its
> >>>>>>>> own expectations of committers.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> it's a very bad limitation. I would prefer a user management which
> >>>>>>> allows registration (by email verification) of new users and where
> >> new
> >>>>>>> users agree to contribute under the Apache license. Maybe combined
> >> with
> >>>>>>> an iCLA but not necessarily require to be committer.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But I am not sure if something like that would be possible at all.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and hope that
> we
> >> can
> >>>>>>> reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together with
> them
> >> on
> >>>>>>> a fast-track.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I agree that the limitation suboptimal.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I suggest someone take this up with legal-discuss@ If legal@ feel
> >> able
> >>>>>> to approve a more relaxed approach to iCLAs for access to Pootle
> then
> >>>>>> infra@ can be asked to find a technical solution.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I agree and thanks to remind me that I should take the appropriate
> >>>>> action to address things like that ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Careful with the "I" - madness lies that way ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>> This is the perfect opportunity for someone lurking here to make an
> >>>> early and potentially very significant contribution. Shepherding these
> >>>> kinds of actions takes time away from those embedded in the coding.
> >>>> It's a good way to earn merit while you figure out where to contribute
> >>>> to the project. If someone like that is reading but not sure how to
> >>>> proceed I'm sure others will help guide you.
> >>>
> >>> I agree but the idea is not really new and nothing happened so far ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Thinking more about it I would like to discuss a new term "Apache
> >>> contributor" where users can register for an user account by accepting
> >>> that all their contributions are under ALv2. The verification can be by
> >>> email verification and the iCLA can be required as well (details have
> to
> >>> be defined). With such accounts people would get access to more pubic
> >>> wikis (like our user wiki), tools like Pootle, bugzilla etc.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The "contributor" role at Apache already handles this. A contributor
> >> can already register in Bugzilla, post patches, register in the wiki,
> >> contribute documentation, etc.
> >>
> >> What a contributor cannot do is directly modify the product code in
> >> SVN. So they are in RTC mode with respect to product code, including
> >> translations.
> >>
> >> I think the disconnect here is we only have an anonymous method for
> >> contributors to add translations to Pootle. I can see the
> >> justification for requiring non-committers to submit translations as
> >> patches in BZ or via suggestions in Pootle. But the anonymous part of
> >> this is completely wrong, both from community and from legal
> >> standpoint.
> >>
> >> For example, those who contribute to Pootle, anonymously, see their
> >> contributions marked as being from "nobody" in the UI:
> >> https://translate.apache.org/projects/OOo_34/
> >>
> >> Isn't that rather insulting?
> >>
> >
> > [reposted since I didn't see this topic change]
> >
> > yes, it is...I thought Juergen was suggesting that some special
> submission
> > access if you will be granted to the Pootle server.
>
> As in we would like to be able to allow people with an iCLA on file to
> register for access to the pootle server.
>
> We can call these people "invited translators"
>
> Should we add a line to the podling report - for the IPMC and board's
> attention?
>
I'd be happy to do that.
And I think something like this would be ideal -- access to a specific
resource only.
>From an implementation standpoint, I don't know what could/would be done,
but that's a conversation for someone else.
Maybe let others have a say first -- I don't know what the ramifications
are of modifying a quarterly report past the deadline -- which was
yesterday.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> >
> >> 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 was alluding to this in a post I made the other
> > day, but didn't specify anything. Using the Pootle server is a perfect
> > example of such a case.
> >
> > Maybe we can take this up with the Board after graduation? -- and see
> what
> > can be done. I can't imagine that some new methods can't be enacted.
> >
> >
> >>> The difference between contributors and committers would be that only
> >>> committers get the @apache.org email address.
> >>>
> >>> I think that a such lightweight user could be useful and the license
> >>> question of their contributions would be clear form the beginning.
> >>>
> >>> Juergen
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "Everything will be all right in the end...
> > if it's not all right then it's not the end. "
> > -- Sonny, "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel"
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Everything will be all right in the end...
if it's not all right then it's not the end. "
-- Sonny, "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel"
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
Posted by Juergen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
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" <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 on this discussion so far.
>>>>
>>>> I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
>>>>
>>>> Also, the anonymous contribution to pootle is a no-no.
>>>>
>>>> - Dennis
>>>>
>>>> PS: Changing to the [DISCUSS] that is called for and to have it be
>> visible.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@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
>>>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working with
>>>> pootle
>>>>>>>>>>> currently requires committership, which results in translators
>>>> having having
>>>>>>>>>>> to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list. The
>>>> board needs to
>>>>>>>>>>> decide if this short-circuiting of the process is desirable or
>> not
>>>> and what
>>>>>>>>>>> the alternatives are.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to the project
>> to
>>>> define its
>>>>>>>>>> own expectations of committers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it's a very bad limitation. I would prefer a user management which
>>>>>>>>> allows registration (by email verification) of new users and where
>>>> new
>>>>>>>>> users agree to contribute under the Apache license. Maybe combined
>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> an iCLA but not necessarily require to be committer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I am not sure if something like that would be possible at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and hope that
>> we
>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together with
>> them
>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> a fast-track.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that the limitation suboptimal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suggest someone take this up with legal-discuss@ If legal@ feel
>>>> able
>>>>>>>> to approve a more relaxed approach to iCLAs for access to Pootle
>> then
>>>>>>>> infra@ can be asked to find a technical solution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree and thanks to remind me that I should take the appropriate
>>>>>>> action to address things like that ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Careful with the "I" - madness lies that way ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the perfect opportunity for someone lurking here to make an
>>>>>> early and potentially very significant contribution. Shepherding these
>>>>>> kinds of actions takes time away from those embedded in the coding.
>>>>>> It's a good way to earn merit while you figure out where to contribute
>>>>>> to the project. If someone like that is reading but not sure how to
>>>>>> proceed I'm sure others will help guide you.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree but the idea is not really new and nothing happened so far ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thinking more about it I would like to discuss a new term "Apache
>>>>> contributor" where users can register for an user account by accepting
>>>>> that all their contributions are under ALv2. The verification can be by
>>>>> email verification and the iCLA can be required as well (details have
>> to
>>>>> be defined). With such accounts people would get access to more pubic
>>>>> wikis (like our user wiki), tools like Pootle, bugzilla etc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The "contributor" role at Apache already handles this. A contributor
>>>> can already register in Bugzilla, post patches, register in the wiki,
>>>> contribute documentation, etc.
>>>>
>>>> What a contributor cannot do is directly modify the product code in
>>>> SVN. So they are in RTC mode with respect to product code, including
>>>> translations.
>>>>
>>>> I think the disconnect here is we only have an anonymous method for
>>>> contributors to add translations to Pootle. I can see the
>>>> justification for requiring non-committers to submit translations as
>>>> patches in BZ or via suggestions in Pootle. But the anonymous part of
>>>> this is completely wrong, both from community and from legal
>>>> standpoint.
>>>>
>>>> For example, those who contribute to Pootle, anonymously, see their
>>>> contributions marked as being from "nobody" in the UI:
>>>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/OOo_34/
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that rather insulting?
>>>>
>>>
>>> [reposted since I didn't see this topic change]
>>>
>>> yes, it is...I thought Juergen was suggesting that some special
>> submission
>>> access if you will be granted to the Pootle server.
>>
>> As in we would like to be able to allow people with an iCLA on file to
>> register for access to the pootle server.
>>
>> We can call these people "invited translators"
>>
>> 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 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 was alluding to this in a post I made the other
>>> day, but didn't specify anything. Using the Pootle server is a perfect
>>> example of such a case.
>>>
>>> Maybe we can take this up with the Board after graduation? -- and see
>> what
>>> can be done. I can't imagine that some new methods can't be enacted.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The difference between contributors and committers would be that only
>>>>> committers get the @apache.org email address.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that a such lightweight user could be useful and the license
>>>>> question of their contributions would be clear form the beginning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> "Everything will be all right in the end...
>>> if it's not all right then it's not the end. "
>>> -- Sonny, "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel"
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
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" <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org
> >wrote:
> >
> >> +1 on this discussion so far.
> >>
> >> I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
> >>
> >> Also, the anonymous contribution to pootle is a no-no.
> >>
> >> - Dennis
> >>
> >> PS: Changing to the [DISCUSS] that is called for and to have it be
> visible.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@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
> >> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>>> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working with
> >> pootle
> >>>>>>>>> currently requires committership, which results in translators
> >> having having
> >>>>>>>>> to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list. The
> >> board needs to
> >>>>>>>>> decide if this short-circuiting of the process is desirable or
> not
> >> and what
> >>>>>>>>> the alternatives are.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to the project
> to
> >> define its
> >>>>>>>> own expectations of committers.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> it's a very bad limitation. I would prefer a user management which
> >>>>>>> allows registration (by email verification) of new users and where
> >> new
> >>>>>>> users agree to contribute under the Apache license. Maybe combined
> >> with
> >>>>>>> an iCLA but not necessarily require to be committer.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But I am not sure if something like that would be possible at all.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and hope that
> we
> >> can
> >>>>>>> reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together with
> them
> >> on
> >>>>>>> a fast-track.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I agree that the limitation suboptimal.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I suggest someone take this up with legal-discuss@ If legal@ feel
> >> able
> >>>>>> to approve a more relaxed approach to iCLAs for access to Pootle
> then
> >>>>>> infra@ can be asked to find a technical solution.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I agree and thanks to remind me that I should take the appropriate
> >>>>> action to address things like that ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Careful with the "I" - madness lies that way ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>> This is the perfect opportunity for someone lurking here to make an
> >>>> early and potentially very significant contribution. Shepherding these
> >>>> kinds of actions takes time away from those embedded in the coding.
> >>>> It's a good way to earn merit while you figure out where to contribute
> >>>> to the project. If someone like that is reading but not sure how to
> >>>> proceed I'm sure others will help guide you.
> >>>
> >>> I agree but the idea is not really new and nothing happened so far ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Thinking more about it I would like to discuss a new term "Apache
> >>> contributor" where users can register for an user account by accepting
> >>> that all their contributions are under ALv2. The verification can be by
> >>> email verification and the iCLA can be required as well (details have
> to
> >>> be defined). With such accounts people would get access to more pubic
> >>> wikis (like our user wiki), tools like Pootle, bugzilla etc.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The "contributor" role at Apache already handles this. A contributor
> >> can already register in Bugzilla, post patches, register in the wiki,
> >> contribute documentation, etc.
> >>
> >> What a contributor cannot do is directly modify the product code in
> >> SVN. So they are in RTC mode with respect to product code, including
> >> translations.
> >>
> >> I think the disconnect here is we only have an anonymous method for
> >> contributors to add translations to Pootle. I can see the
> >> justification for requiring non-committers to submit translations as
> >> patches in BZ or via suggestions in Pootle. But the anonymous part of
> >> this is completely wrong, both from community and from legal
> >> standpoint.
> >>
> >> For example, those who contribute to Pootle, anonymously, see their
> >> contributions marked as being from "nobody" in the UI:
> >> https://translate.apache.org/projects/OOo_34/
> >>
> >> Isn't that rather insulting?
> >>
> >
> > [reposted since I didn't see this topic change]
> >
> > yes, it is...I thought Juergen was suggesting that some special
> submission
> > access if you will be granted to the Pootle server.
>
> As in we would like to be able to allow people with an iCLA on file to
> register for access to the pootle server.
>
> We can call these people "invited translators"
>
> 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 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 was alluding to this in a post I made the other
> > day, but didn't specify anything. Using the Pootle server is a perfect
> > example of such a case.
> >
> > Maybe we can take this up with the Board after graduation? -- and see
> what
> > can be done. I can't imagine that some new methods can't be enacted.
> >
> >
> >>> The difference between contributors and committers would be that only
> >>> committers get the @apache.org email address.
> >>>
> >>> I think that a such lightweight user could be useful and the license
> >>> question of their contributions would be clear form the beginning.
> >>>
> >>> Juergen
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "Everything will be all right in the end...
> > if it's not all right then it's not the end. "
> > -- Sonny, "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel"
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jun 7, 2012, at 3:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> +1 on this discussion so far.
>>
>> I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
>>
>> Also, the anonymous contribution to pootle is a no-no.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> PS: Changing to the [DISCUSS] that is called for and to have it be visible.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@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
>> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working with
>> pootle
>>>>>>>>> currently requires committership, which results in translators
>> having having
>>>>>>>>> to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list. The
>> board needs to
>>>>>>>>> decide if this short-circuiting of the process is desirable or not
>> and what
>>>>>>>>> the alternatives are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to the project to
>> define its
>>>>>>>> own expectations of committers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it's a very bad limitation. I would prefer a user management which
>>>>>>> allows registration (by email verification) of new users and where
>> new
>>>>>>> users agree to contribute under the Apache license. Maybe combined
>> with
>>>>>>> an iCLA but not necessarily require to be committer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I am not sure if something like that would be possible at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and hope that we
>> can
>>>>>>> reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together with them
>> on
>>>>>>> a fast-track.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that the limitation suboptimal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest someone take this up with legal-discuss@ If legal@ feel
>> able
>>>>>> to approve a more relaxed approach to iCLAs for access to Pootle then
>>>>>> infra@ can be asked to find a technical solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree and thanks to remind me that I should take the appropriate
>>>>> action to address things like that ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Careful with the "I" - madness lies that way ;-)
>>>>
>>>> This is the perfect opportunity for someone lurking here to make an
>>>> early and potentially very significant contribution. Shepherding these
>>>> kinds of actions takes time away from those embedded in the coding.
>>>> It's a good way to earn merit while you figure out where to contribute
>>>> to the project. If someone like that is reading but not sure how to
>>>> proceed I'm sure others will help guide you.
>>>
>>> I agree but the idea is not really new and nothing happened so far ;-)
>>>
>>> Thinking more about it I would like to discuss a new term "Apache
>>> contributor" where users can register for an user account by accepting
>>> that all their contributions are under ALv2. The verification can be by
>>> email verification and the iCLA can be required as well (details have to
>>> be defined). With such accounts people would get access to more pubic
>>> wikis (like our user wiki), tools like Pootle, bugzilla etc.
>>>
>>
>> The "contributor" role at Apache already handles this. A contributor
>> can already register in Bugzilla, post patches, register in the wiki,
>> contribute documentation, etc.
>>
>> What a contributor cannot do is directly modify the product code in
>> SVN. So they are in RTC mode with respect to product code, including
>> translations.
>>
>> I think the disconnect here is we only have an anonymous method for
>> contributors to add translations to Pootle. I can see the
>> justification for requiring non-committers to submit translations as
>> patches in BZ or via suggestions in Pootle. But the anonymous part of
>> this is completely wrong, both from community and from legal
>> standpoint.
>>
>> For example, those who contribute to Pootle, anonymously, see their
>> contributions marked as being from "nobody" in the UI:
>> https://translate.apache.org/projects/OOo_34/
>>
>> Isn't that rather insulting?
>>
>
> [reposted since I didn't see this topic change]
>
> yes, it is...I thought Juergen was suggesting that some special submission
> access if you will be granted to the Pootle server.
As in we would like to be able to allow people with an iCLA on file to register for access to the pootle server.
We can call these people "invited translators"
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 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 was alluding to this in a post I made the other
> day, but didn't specify anything. Using the Pootle server is a perfect
> example of such a case.
>
> Maybe we can take this up with the Board after graduation? -- and see what
> can be done. I can't imagine that some new methods can't be enacted.
>
>
>>> The difference between contributors and committers would be that only
>>> committers get the @apache.org email address.
>>>
>>> I think that a such lightweight user could be useful and the license
>>> question of their contributions would be clear form the beginning.
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Everything will be all right in the end...
> if it's not all right then it's not the end. "
> -- Sonny, "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel"
Re: [DISCUSS] Pootle and New Contributor Category
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>wrote:
> +1 on this discussion so far.
>
> I was skeptical but I favor how this is going.
>
> Also, the anonymous contribution to pootle is a no-no.
>
> - Dennis
>
> PS: Changing to the [DISCUSS] that is called for and to have it be visible.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@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
> <jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/7/12 12:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >> On 7 June 2012 11:02, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> On 6/7/12 11:54 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>>> On 7 June 2012 10:47, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/7/12 11:28 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7 June 2012 05:50, Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think we maybe should add one more topic here: Working with
> pootle
> >>>>>>> currently requires committership, which results in translators
> having having
> >>>>>>> to be fast-tracked when they show up on the mailing list. The
> board needs to
> >>>>>>> decide if this short-circuiting of the process is desirable or not
> and what
> >>>>>>> the alternatives are.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, need, that's not a board level issue. It's up to the project to
> define its
> >>>>>> own expectations of committers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it's a very bad limitation. I would prefer a user management which
> >>>>> allows registration (by email verification) of new users and where
> new
> >>>>> users agree to contribute under the Apache license. Maybe combined
> with
> >>>>> an iCLA but not necessarily require to be committer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But I am not sure if something like that would be possible at all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Otherwise we have to deal with the current approach and hope that we
> can
> >>>>> reach volunteers to accept this approach and work together with them
> on
> >>>>> a fast-track.
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree that the limitation suboptimal.
> >>>>
> >>>> I suggest someone take this up with legal-discuss@ If legal@ feel
> able
> >>>> to approve a more relaxed approach to iCLAs for access to Pootle then
> >>>> infra@ can be asked to find a technical solution.
> >>>
> >>> I agree and thanks to remind me that I should take the appropriate
> >>> action to address things like that ;-)
> >>
> >> Careful with the "I" - madness lies that way ;-)
> >>
> >> This is the perfect opportunity for someone lurking here to make an
> >> early and potentially very significant contribution. Shepherding these
> >> kinds of actions takes time away from those embedded in the coding.
> >> It's a good way to earn merit while you figure out where to contribute
> >> to the project. If someone like that is reading but not sure how to
> >> proceed I'm sure others will help guide you.
> >
> > I agree but the idea is not really new and nothing happened so far ;-)
> >
> > Thinking more about it I would like to discuss a new term "Apache
> > contributor" where users can register for an user account by accepting
> > that all their contributions are under ALv2. The verification can be by
> > email verification and the iCLA can be required as well (details have to
> > be defined). With such accounts people would get access to more pubic
> > wikis (like our user wiki), tools like Pootle, bugzilla etc.
> >
>
> The "contributor" role at Apache already handles this. A contributor
> can already register in Bugzilla, post patches, register in the wiki,
> contribute documentation, etc.
>
> What a contributor cannot do is directly modify the product code in
> SVN. So they are in RTC mode with respect to product code, including
> translations.
>
> I think the disconnect here is we only have an anonymous method for
> contributors to add translations to Pootle. I can see the
> justification for requiring non-committers to submit translations as
> patches in BZ or via suggestions in Pootle. But the anonymous part of
> this is completely wrong, both from community and from legal
> standpoint.
>
> For example, those who contribute to Pootle, anonymously, see their
> contributions marked as being from "nobody" in the UI:
> https://translate.apache.org/projects/OOo_34/
>
> Isn't that rather insulting?
>
[reposted since I didn't see this topic change]
yes, it is...I thought Juergen was suggesting that some special submission
access if you will be granted to the Pootle server.
> 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 was alluding to this in a post I made the other
day, but didn't specify anything. Using the Pootle server is a perfect
example of such a case.
Maybe we can take this up with the Board after graduation? -- and see what
can be done. I can't imagine that some new methods can't be enacted.
> > The difference between contributors and committers would be that only
> > committers get the @apache.org email address.
> >
> > I think that a such lightweight user could be useful and the license
> > question of their contributions would be clear form the beginning.
> >
> > Juergen
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Everything will be all right in the end...
if it's not all right then it's not the end. "
-- Sonny, "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel"