8:48 a.m.
Today we held a meeting to coordinate some changes to our L10N
process. We had representatives present from the L10N team, the
Infrastructure team, FESCo, the Docs team, as well as the Fedora
Project Leader and the Fedora Program Manager.
The topic of discussion was moving from a Fedora-hosted instance of
Transifex (currently on version 0.7) to Transifex.net.
The minutes of the meeting are at the links below. We encourage
anyone interested to use the Logistics mailing list to coordinate the
efforts of all involved.
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-16/fedora_l10n_co...
Minutes (text):
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-16/fedora_l10n_co...
Log:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-16/fedora_l10n_co...
--
Jared Smith
Fedora Project Leader
3:16 p.m.
On 02/17/2011 12:48 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
Today we held a meeting to coordinate some changes to our L10N
process. We had representatives present from the L10N team, the
Infrastructure team, FESCo, the Docs team, as well as the Fedora
Project Leader and the Fedora Program Manager.
The topic of discussion was moving from a Fedora-hosted instance of
Transifex (currently on version 0.7) to Transifex.net.
Why the rush? F16 seems a more reasonable timeframe.
6:45 p.m.
2011/2/16 Mike Hideo <mhideo(a)redhat.com>:
On 02/17/2011 12:48 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
> Today we held a meeting to coordinate some changes to our L10N
> process. We had representatives present from the L10N team, the
> Infrastructure team, FESCo, the Docs team, as well as the Fedora
> Project Leader and the Fedora Program Manager.
>
> The topic of discussion was moving from a Fedora-hosted instance of
> Transifex (currently on version 0.7) to Transifex.net.
>
Why the rush? F16 seems a more reasonable timeframe.
It was discussed in a Fedora L10N meeting last Feb 15 [1], and we
decided that it's better to do it now.
[1]
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-15/fedora-meeting...
kind regards
Domingo Becker (es)
10:09 p.m.
On 02/17/2011 10:45 AM, Domingo Becker wrote:
2011/2/16 Mike Hideo<mhideo(a)redhat.com>:
> On 02/17/2011 12:48 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
>> Today we held a meeting to coordinate some changes to our L10N
>> process. We had representatives present from the L10N team, the
>> Infrastructure team, FESCo, the Docs team, as well as the Fedora
>> Project Leader and the Fedora Program Manager.
>>
>> The topic of discussion was moving from a Fedora-hosted instance of
>> Transifex (currently on version 0.7) to Transifex.net.
>>
>
> Why the rush? F16 seems a more reasonable timeframe.
It was discussed in a Fedora L10N meeting last Feb 15 [1], and we
decided that it's better to do it now.
[1]
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-15/fedora-meeting...
It takes great courage to disagree and to carefully weigh the impact and
alternatives with so many board members in a localization meeting.
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-15/fedora-meeting...
10:35 p.m.
Mike Hideo さんは書きました:
On 02/17/2011 10:45 AM, Domingo Becker wrote:
> 2011/2/16 Mike Hideo<mhideo(a)redhat.com>:
>> On 02/17/2011 12:48 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
>>> Today we held a meeting to coordinate some changes to our L10N
>>> process. We had representatives present from the L10N team, the
>>> Infrastructure team, FESCo, the Docs team, as well as the Fedora
>>> Project Leader and the Fedora Program Manager.
>>>
>>> The topic of discussion was moving from a Fedora-hosted instance of
>>> Transifex (currently on version 0.7) to Transifex.net.
>>>
>> Why the rush? F16 seems a more reasonable timeframe.
> It was discussed in a Fedora L10N meeting last Feb 15 [1], and we
> decided that it's better to do it now.
>
> [1]
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-15/fedora-meeting...
It takes great courage to disagree and to carefully weigh the impact and
alternatives with so many board members in a localization meeting.
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-15/fedora-meeting...
There were eight +1s voting for working system/workflow, since we only
have broken transifex but no alternate option to choose on fp.o but the
move.
Please notice that two +1s voted with the condition of exit plan (aka, a
plan to get the system back on fp.o in the future), and another +1 with
some hesitation stated.
noriko
--
trans mailing list
trans(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
9:12 a.m.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 02:35:33PM +1000, noriko wrote:
Mike Hideo さんは書きました:
> On 02/17/2011 10:45 AM, Domingo Becker wrote:
>> 2011/2/16 Mike Hideo<mhideo(a)redhat.com>:
>>> On 02/17/2011 12:48 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
>>>> Today we held a meeting to coordinate some changes to our L10N
>>>> process. We had representatives present from the L10N team, the
>>>> Infrastructure team, FESCo, the Docs team, as well as the Fedora
>>>> Project Leader and the Fedora Program Manager.
>>>>
>>>> The topic of discussion was moving from a Fedora-hosted instance of
>>>> Transifex (currently on version 0.7) to Transifex.net.
>>>>
>>> Why the rush? F16 seems a more reasonable timeframe.
>> It was discussed in a Fedora L10N meeting last Feb 15 [1], and we
>> decided that it's better to do it now.
>>
>> [1]
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-15/fedora-meeting...
>
> It takes great courage to disagree and to carefully weigh the impact and
> alternatives with so many board members in a localization meeting.
>
>
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-15/fedora-meeting...
There were eight +1s voting for working system/workflow, since we only
have broken transifex but no alternate option to choose on fp.o but the
move.
Please notice that two +1s voted with the condition of exit plan (aka, a
plan to get the system back on fp.o in the future), and another +1 with
some hesitation stated.
Mike, thanks for speaking up about your concerns. Not being a member
of either the Board or the L10n steering group, I attended simply as
an interested third party who wants to see translators able to do
great work in Fedora. I'm happy to see everyone involved in this
discussion has the needs of translators as their top priority.
Currently the biggest pain translators have is unfixed bugs in the
Fedora-hosted Tx 0.7 instance. Upstream (Transifex.net, or Tx.n)
continues to outpace us with new releases and enhancements that make
translators' lives easier and the platform more useful. The largest
issue is not the migration from a Fedora-hosted instance to Tx.n, but
simply making a newer version available to translators so they can
work more efficiently.
The vast majority of the pain involved with transition is needed just
so we can have effective translations for F15. The migration to Tx.n
is a way to make this transition happen faster, and in itself
hopefully should cause little pain to translators other than an
account signup.
FWIW, I support this move since it will help the community's
efficiency. At the same time, my concerns (as I stated in the
meeting) are around having speedy communication with stakeholders,
including but not limited to Fedora's hosted project owners. Once the
migration plan is in place, we expect an announcement with details to
devel-announce. Progress can be followed in #fedora-l10n.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
10:22 a.m.
Le 17/02/2011 16:12, Paul W. Frields a écrit :
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 02:35:33PM +1000, noriko wrote:
> Mike Hideo さんは書きました:
>> On 02/17/2011 10:45 AM, Domingo Becker wrote:
>>> 2011/2/16 Mike Hideo<mhideo(a)redhat.com>:
>>>> On 02/17/2011 12:48 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
>>>>> Today we held a meeting to coordinate some changes to our L10N
>>>>> process. We had representatives present from the L10N team, the
>>>>> Infrastructure team, FESCo, the Docs team, as well as the Fedora
>>>>> Project Leader and the Fedora Program Manager.
>>>>>
>>>>> The topic of discussion was moving from a Fedora-hosted instance of
>>>>> Transifex (currently on version 0.7) to Transifex.net.
>>>>>
>>>> Why the rush? F16 seems a more reasonable timeframe.
>>> It was discussed in a Fedora L10N meeting last Feb 15 [1], and we
>>> decided that it's better to do it now.
>>>
>>> [1]
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-15/fedora-meeting...
>>
>> It takes great courage to disagree and to carefully weigh the impact and
>> alternatives with so many board members in a localization meeting.
>>
>>
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-15/fedora-meeting...
>
> There were eight +1s voting for working system/workflow, since we only
> have broken transifex but no alternate option to choose on fp.o but the
> move.
>
> Please notice that two +1s voted with the condition of exit plan (aka, a
> plan to get the system back on fp.o in the future), and another +1 with
> some hesitation stated.
Mike, thanks for speaking up about your concerns. Not being a member
of either the Board or the L10n steering group, I attended simply as
an interested third party who wants to see translators able to do
great work in Fedora. I'm happy to see everyone involved in this
discussion has the needs of translators as their top priority.
Currently the biggest pain translators have is unfixed bugs in the
Fedora-hosted Tx 0.7 instance. Upstream (Transifex.net, or Tx.n)
continues to outpace us with new releases and enhancements that make
translators' lives easier and the platform more useful. The largest
issue is not the migration from a Fedora-hosted instance to Tx.n, but
simply making a newer version available to translators so they can
work more efficiently.
The vast majority of the pain involved with transition is needed just
so we can have effective translations for F15. The migration to Tx.n
is a way to make this transition happen faster, and in itself
hopefully should cause little pain to translators other than an
account signup.
FWIW, I support this move since it will help the community's
efficiency. At the same time, my concerns (as I stated in the
meeting) are around having speedy communication with stakeholders,
including but not limited to Fedora's hosted project owners. Once the
migration plan is in place, we expect an announcement with details to
devel-announce. Progress can be followed in #fedora-l10n.
I also think this was the thing to do. It's also great to see that we
are able to take a fast & right decision.
Thomas
11 a.m.
написане Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:22:38 +0200, Thomas Canniot
<thomas.canniot(a)mrtomlinux.org>:
Le 17/02/2011 16:12, Paul W. Frields a écrit :
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 02:35:33PM +1000, noriko wrote:
>> Mike Hideo さんは書きました:
>>> On 02/17/2011 10:45 AM, Domingo Becker wrote:
>>>> 2011/2/16 Mike Hideo<mhideo(a)redhat.com>:
>>>>> On 02/17/2011 12:48 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
>>>>>> Today we held a meeting to coordinate some changes to our L10N
>>>>>> process. We had representatives present from the L10N team, the
>>>>>> Infrastructure team, FESCo, the Docs team, as well as the Fedora
>>>>>> Project Leader and the Fedora Program Manager.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The topic of discussion was moving from a Fedora-hosted instance
of
>>>>>> Transifex (currently on version 0.7) to Transifex.net.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why the rush? F16 seems a more reasonable timeframe.
>>>> It was discussed in a Fedora L10N meeting last Feb 15 [1], and we
>>>> decided that it's better to do it now.
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>>
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-15/fedora-meeting...
>>>
>>> It takes great courage to disagree and to carefully weigh the impact
>>> and
>>> alternatives with so many board members in a localization meeting.
>>>
>>>
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-15/fedora-meeting...
>>
>> There were eight +1s voting for working system/workflow, since we only
>> have broken transifex but no alternate option to choose on fp.o but the
>> move.
>>
>> Please notice that two +1s voted with the condition of exit plan (aka,
>> a
>> plan to get the system back on fp.o in the future), and another +1 with
>> some hesitation stated.
>
> Mike, thanks for speaking up about your concerns. Not being a member
> of either the Board or the L10n steering group, I attended simply as
> an interested third party who wants to see translators able to do
> great work in Fedora. I'm happy to see everyone involved in this
> discussion has the needs of translators as their top priority.
>
> Currently the biggest pain translators have is unfixed bugs in the
> Fedora-hosted Tx 0.7 instance. Upstream (Transifex.net, or Tx.n)
> continues to outpace us with new releases and enhancements that make
> translators' lives easier and the platform more useful. The largest
> issue is not the migration from a Fedora-hosted instance to Tx.n, but
> simply making a newer version available to translators so they can
> work more efficiently.
>
> The vast majority of the pain involved with transition is needed just
> so we can have effective translations for F15. The migration to Tx.n
> is a way to make this transition happen faster, and in itself
> hopefully should cause little pain to translators other than an
> account signup.
>
> FWIW, I support this move since it will help the community's
> efficiency. At the same time, my concerns (as I stated in the
> meeting) are around having speedy communication with stakeholders,
> including but not limited to Fedora's hosted project owners. Once the
> migration plan is in place, we expect an announcement with details to
> devel-announce. Progress can be followed in #fedora-l10n.
>
I also think this was the thing to do. It's also great to see that we
are able to take a fast & right decision.
Thomas
Move translations on a half-baked server in a day of string freeze and a
month before deadline... It's a very fast & right decision.
Because of the decisions like this it was really a good thing for me not
using Fedora.
Just my 5 cents.
2:59 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 07:00:26PM +0200, Yuri Chornoivan wrote:
написане Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:22:38 +0200, Thomas Canniot
<thomas.canniot(a)mrtomlinux.org>:
> Le 17/02/2011 16:12, Paul W. Frields a écrit :
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 02:35:33PM +1000, noriko wrote:
>>> Mike Hideo さんは書きました:
>>>> On 02/17/2011 10:45 AM, Domingo Becker wrote:
>>>>> 2011/2/16 Mike Hideo<mhideo(a)redhat.com>:
>>>>>> On 02/17/2011 12:48 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> Today we held a meeting to coordinate some changes to our
L10N
>>>>>>> process. We had representatives present from the L10N team,
the
>>>>>>> Infrastructure team, FESCo, the Docs team, as well as the
Fedora
>>>>>>> Project Leader and the Fedora Program Manager.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The topic of discussion was moving from a Fedora-hosted
instance of
>>>>>>> Transifex (currently on version 0.7) to Transifex.net.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why the rush? F16 seems a more reasonable timeframe.
>>>>> It was discussed in a Fedora L10N meeting last Feb 15 [1], and we
>>>>> decided that it's better to do it now.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>>
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-15/fedora-meeting...
>>>>
>>>> It takes great courage to disagree and to carefully weigh the impact
>>>> and
>>>> alternatives with so many board members in a localization meeting.
>>>>
>>>>
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-15/fedora-meeting...
>>>
>>> There were eight +1s voting for working system/workflow, since we only
>>> have broken transifex but no alternate option to choose on fp.o but the
>>> move.
>>>
>>> Please notice that two +1s voted with the condition of exit plan (aka,
>>> a
>>> plan to get the system back on fp.o in the future), and another +1 with
>>> some hesitation stated.
>>
>> Mike, thanks for speaking up about your concerns. Not being a member
>> of either the Board or the L10n steering group, I attended simply as
>> an interested third party who wants to see translators able to do
>> great work in Fedora. I'm happy to see everyone involved in this
>> discussion has the needs of translators as their top priority.
>>
>> Currently the biggest pain translators have is unfixed bugs in the
>> Fedora-hosted Tx 0.7 instance. Upstream (Transifex.net, or Tx.n)
>> continues to outpace us with new releases and enhancements that make
>> translators' lives easier and the platform more useful. The largest
>> issue is not the migration from a Fedora-hosted instance to Tx.n, but
>> simply making a newer version available to translators so they can
>> work more efficiently.
>>
>> The vast majority of the pain involved with transition is needed just
>> so we can have effective translations for F15. The migration to Tx.n
>> is a way to make this transition happen faster, and in itself
>> hopefully should cause little pain to translators other than an
>> account signup.
>>
>> FWIW, I support this move since it will help the community's
>> efficiency. At the same time, my concerns (as I stated in the
>> meeting) are around having speedy communication with stakeholders,
>> including but not limited to Fedora's hosted project owners. Once the
>> migration plan is in place, we expect an announcement with details to
>> devel-announce. Progress can be followed in #fedora-l10n.
>>
>
>
> I also think this was the thing to do. It's also great to see that we
> are able to take a fast & right decision.
>
> Thomas
Move translations on a half-baked server in a day of string freeze and a
month before deadline... It's a very fast & right decision.
Because of the decisions like this it was really a good thing for me not
using Fedora.
Just my 5 cents.
The problem, as I understand it, is that right now we *are* on a
crippled system. We're trying to fix that problem, as well as the
undue strain it puts on the Infrastructure team that helps support it.
One way or another, we need to move to a newer, supported version of
Transifex. Unless, of course, you'd rather have very few (or no)
translations in Fedora. But since you state you don't use Fedora, I'm
confused as to why you were driven to write this message to begin
with.
Again, thank you to all the folks on this list who are discussing the
issues at hand with consideration, no matter the solution they prefer.
Would it have been nice to deal with this issue, say, two months ago?
Absolutely. But we ought to be capable of moving quickly with so many
interested people involved, and personally, I have a lot of faith in
this team to get the job done.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
5:18 p.m.
On 02/18/2011 01:12 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 02:35:33PM +1000, noriko wrote:
> Mike Hideo さんは書きました:
>> On 02/17/2011 10:45 AM, Domingo Becker wrote:
>>> 2011/2/16 Mike Hideo<mhideo(a)redhat.com>:
>>>> On 02/17/2011 12:48 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
>>>>> Today we held a meeting to coordinate some changes to our L10N
>>>>> process. We had representatives present from the L10N team, the
>>>>> Infrastructure team, FESCo, the Docs team, as well as the Fedora
>>>>> Project Leader and the Fedora Program Manager.
>>>>>
>>>>> The topic of discussion was moving from a Fedora-hosted instance of
>>>>> Transifex (currently on version 0.7) to Transifex.net.
>>>>>
>>>> Why the rush? F16 seems a more reasonable timeframe.
>>> It was discussed in a Fedora L10N meeting last Feb 15 [1], and we
>>> decided that it's better to do it now.
>>>
>>> [1]
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-15/fedora-meeting...
>>
>> It takes great courage to disagree and to carefully weigh the impact and
>> alternatives with so many board members in a localization meeting.
>>
>>
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-15/fedora-meeting...
>
> There were eight +1s voting for working system/workflow, since we only
> have broken transifex but no alternate option to choose on fp.o but the
> move.
>
> Please notice that two +1s voted with the condition of exit plan (aka, a
> plan to get the system back on fp.o in the future), and another +1 with
> some hesitation stated.
Mike, thanks for speaking up about your concerns. Not being a member
of either the Board or the L10n steering group, I attended simply as
an interested third party who wants to see translators able to do
great work in Fedora. I'm happy to see everyone involved in this
discussion has the needs of translators as their top priority.
Currently the biggest pain translators have is unfixed bugs in the
Fedora-hosted Tx 0.7 instance. Upstream (Transifex.net, or Tx.n)
continues to outpace us with new releases and enhancements that make
translators' lives easier and the platform more useful. The largest
issue is not the migration from a Fedora-hosted instance to Tx.n, but
simply making a newer version available to translators so they can
work more efficiently.
The vast majority of the pain involved with transition is needed just
so we can have effective translations for F15. The migration to Tx.n
is a way to make this transition happen faster, and in itself
hopefully should cause little pain to translators other than an
account signup.
FWIW, I support this move since it will help the community's
efficiency. At the same time, my concerns (as I stated in the
meeting) are around having speedy communication with stakeholders,
including but not limited to Fedora's hosted project owners. Once the
migration plan is in place, we expect an announcement with details to
devel-announce. Progress can be followed in #fedora-l10n.
Hi Paul, it struck me as odd to have a vote. The bullseye lantern was
squarely illuminated on transifex. I feel governance should have choice.
I note in the fesco meeting[1] Noriko suggested a measured alternative
to give time to make a decsion but was told "no" without governance
giving a window to discussion.
Perhaps (and perhaps not) Noriko, much like myself and perhaps others,
have a cultural background where we cannot say "no" in public. You may
not get a forthright answer due to cultural difference. Where I was
born, sometimes we cannot say "no". Sometimes when we say "yes" we
really mean "no". Culture is a consideration.
- Hideo Sumisu
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-16/fesco.2011-02-...
8:49 p.m.
Mike Hideo さんは書きました:
On 02/18/2011 01:12 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 02:35:33PM +1000, noriko wrote:
>> Mike Hideo さんは書きました:
>>> On 02/17/2011 10:45 AM, Domingo Becker wrote:
>>>> 2011/2/16 Mike Hideo<mhideo(a)redhat.com>:
>>>>> On 02/17/2011 12:48 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
>>>>>> Today we held a meeting to coordinate some changes to our L10N
>>>>>> process. We had representatives present from the L10N team, the
>>>>>> Infrastructure team, FESCo, the Docs team, as well as the Fedora
>>>>>> Project Leader and the Fedora Program Manager.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The topic of discussion was moving from a Fedora-hosted instance
of
>>>>>> Transifex (currently on version 0.7) to Transifex.net.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why the rush? F16 seems a more reasonable timeframe.
>>>> It was discussed in a Fedora L10N meeting last Feb 15 [1], and we
>>>> decided that it's better to do it now.
>>>>
>>>> [1]
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-15/fedora-meeting...
>>> It takes great courage to disagree and to carefully weigh the impact and
>>> alternatives with so many board members in a localization meeting.
>>>
>>>
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-15/fedora-meeting...
>> There were eight +1s voting for working system/workflow, since we only
>> have broken transifex but no alternate option to choose on fp.o but the
>> move.
>>
>> Please notice that two +1s voted with the condition of exit plan (aka, a
>> plan to get the system back on fp.o in the future), and another +1 with
>> some hesitation stated.
> Mike, thanks for speaking up about your concerns. Not being a member
> of either the Board or the L10n steering group, I attended simply as
> an interested third party who wants to see translators able to do
> great work in Fedora. I'm happy to see everyone involved in this
> discussion has the needs of translators as their top priority.
>
> Currently the biggest pain translators have is unfixed bugs in the
> Fedora-hosted Tx 0.7 instance. Upstream (Transifex.net, or Tx.n)
> continues to outpace us with new releases and enhancements that make
> translators' lives easier and the platform more useful. The largest
> issue is not the migration from a Fedora-hosted instance to Tx.n, but
> simply making a newer version available to translators so they can
> work more efficiently.
>
> The vast majority of the pain involved with transition is needed just
> so we can have effective translations for F15. The migration to Tx.n
> is a way to make this transition happen faster, and in itself
> hopefully should cause little pain to translators other than an
> account signup.
>
> FWIW, I support this move since it will help the community's
> efficiency. At the same time, my concerns (as I stated in the
> meeting) are around having speedy communication with stakeholders,
> including but not limited to Fedora's hosted project owners. Once the
> migration plan is in place, we expect an announcement with details to
> devel-announce. Progress can be followed in #fedora-l10n.
>
Hi Paul, it struck me as odd to have a vote. The bullseye lantern was
squarely illuminated on transifex. I feel governance should have choice.
I note in the fesco meeting[1] Noriko suggested a measured alternative
to give time to make a decsion but was told "no" without governance
giving a window to discussion.
Thank you Mike for pointing this.
What I exactly asked at the second meeting was the possibility if a
dedicated resource can be obtained to keep fedora tx for f15, and the
answer was simple "no" [3].
Perhaps (and perhaps not) Noriko, much like myself and perhaps others,
have a cultural background where we cannot say "no" in public. You may
not get a forthright answer due to cultural difference. Where I was
born, sometimes we cannot say "no". Sometimes when we say "yes" we
really mean "no". Culture is a consideration.
I could not say 'no' irresponsibly without any concrete alternate option
to be presented yet.
Additionally, please notice that there were **four team coordinators who
did NOT make a vote but keep silence. One expressed his standpoint
opposing the move, and other asked the alternate option than the move.
Both were not well discussed.
Please let me excuse that it was too short time allowed to cast a vote.
It was asked to all translators for input on 9-Feb [1]. The FLP meeting
was called on 13-Feb [2] and held on 15-Feb. The time given to us was 6
days.
My concern has to move to an exit plan.
Two +1s stated to have an exit plan as the condition of 'yes' in the
meeting. Could you please advise the procedure to implement an exit plan
when we are ready a resource for us?
It is best for us to get the system back on home Fedora.
[1]:http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/trans/2011-February/008586.html
[2]:http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/trans/2011-February/008596.html
[3]:http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-16/fedora_l10n...
noriko
- Hideo Sumisu
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-16/fesco.2011-02-...
--
trans mailing list
trans(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
6:04 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:49 PM, noriko <noriko(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
My concern has to move to an exit plan.
Two +1s stated to have an exit plan as the condition of 'yes' in the
meeting. Could you please advise the procedure to implement an exit plan
when we are ready a resource for us?
As is always the case in Fedora, we're fairly flexible in our ability
to move to the best solution that's available at that moment in time.
As far as the short-term goes, the only reasonable exit plan I can see
would be to move back to a self-hosted version of Transifex, or to
move to another solution.
As I've explained before, we don't have the necessary manpower to keep
our self-hosted version of Transifex up and running well. Even if
someone were to come along and offer to help, I think our
Infrastructure team would be hesitant to move back to a self-hosted
solution without a very strong long-term commitment of dedicated
resources to not only keep the instance running, but to keep it up to
date (both in terms of features and bug-fixes).
An analogy I like to use is that software is like an animal. If my
daughter came to me today and asked for a pony, what would my reaction
be? My first thoughts would be to think about food, a place for it to
live, how to clean up after it, the costs involved, etc. I think we
should take that same sort of attitude with the software we bring into
Fedora Infrastructure. It's easy to get software up and running, but
it's an entirely different different matter to be dedicated to the
long-term maintenance of the software package.
The only other exit strategy I see is theoretical. If at some future
date there's software available that's better than Transifex and the
advantages of moving to that software justify the transition, we could
always move to it. But like I said, it's theoretical. Right now,
Transifex is by far the best solution that I've seen for the type of
translation we're doing in Fedora. I have full confidence both in the
Transifex team's technical abilities and in their willingness to
listen to open source communities (like Fedora) and add features as
necessary. So, to be blunt, I don't see us moving away from Transifex
in the short term, but it's always a theoretical option in the future.
On a more technical nature, the only realistic exit strategies would
be to either roll back to our current hosted instance of Transifex
(and be willing to live with the old version), or find a team willing
to both install a newer version of Transifex internally *and* take on
the long-term maintenance of that instance. The first is a short-term
solution at best, and the second takes more resources that we have
available.
Let me also point out that most of the pain of this migration to
Transifex.net is not actually involved in the move to Transifex.net
itself, but in the upgrade from version 0.7 to the 1.0 version.
It is best for us to get the system back on home Fedora.
In general, yes, one could argue that having Fedora being self-hosted
from an infrastructure standpoint is better. But we've also got to be
open-minded enough to realize that each additional tool we add to our
own infrastructure comes with a maintenance burden (or a technical
debt, as some people prefer to call it). One of my jobs as the Fedora
Project Leader is to work with all the teams involved to help balance
our wishes with our resources, and try to make the best decisions I
can for Fedora as a whole. In the case of the migration to
Transifex.net, it's pretty clear that the advantages outweigh the
risks. Why can I say that so confidently? It's because I've watched
the Transifex team as they've developed the software, turned it into a
small business, and continued to do the right thing.
Hopefully, that clarifies things.
--
Jared Smith
Fedora Project Leader
8:17 a.m.
Em Sex, 2011-02-18 às 19:04 -0500, Jared K. Smith escreveu:
In general, yes, one could argue that having Fedora being self-hosted
from an infrastructure standpoint is better. But we've also got to be
open-minded enough to realize that each additional tool we add to our
own infrastructure comes with a maintenance burden (or a technical
debt, as some people prefer to call it). One of my jobs as the Fedora
Project Leader is to work with all the teams involved to help balance
our wishes with our resources, and try to make the best decisions I
can for Fedora as a whole. In the case of the migration to
Transifex.net, it's pretty clear that the advantages outweigh the
risks. Why can I say that so confidently? It's because I've watched
the Transifex team as they've developed the software, turned it into a
small business, and continued to do the right thing.
From the QA side I believe that migrating to Tx.n was a good move. The
instability of Fedora's Transifex instance could lead to problems when
submitting translations, making translators and developers frustrated
when a translation doesn't end in a final version or when a deadline is
missed. I'm also sure that new features offered by Tx.n will help the
translation community to do a better job, what means an operating system
with better translations.
From my early experience on Fedora I realize that strong translation
communities means strong regional communities because people feel
supported and glad to use and contribute to Fedora in their mother
language. I have seen the great improvement made by the Transifex
developers during the years and how things got better if compared to my
early days as a translator. That´s why I'm also confident that we are
moving to the right direction now.
--
Igor Pires Soares
Fedora Ambassador (Brazil) - Member of FAmSCo
Fedora I18N/L10N QA
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Igor
8:20 a.m.
Hi guys,
I just would like to say thank you to the transifex team, and their
devs - and the possibility that I could always send my work and
support my language.
Cheers,
Zoltan
2011/2/19 Igor Pires Soares <igorsoares(a)gmail.com>:
Em Sex, 2011-02-18 às 19:04 -0500, Jared K. Smith escreveu:
>
> In general, yes, one could argue that having Fedora being self-hosted
> from an infrastructure standpoint is better. But we've also got to be
> open-minded enough to realize that each additional tool we add to our
> own infrastructure comes with a maintenance burden (or a technical
> debt, as some people prefer to call it). One of my jobs as the Fedora
> Project Leader is to work with all the teams involved to help balance
> our wishes with our resources, and try to make the best decisions I
> can for Fedora as a whole. In the case of the migration to
> Transifex.net, it's pretty clear that the advantages outweigh the
> risks. Why can I say that so confidently? It's because I've watched
> the Transifex team as they've developed the software, turned it into a
> small business, and continued to do the right thing.
From the QA side I believe that migrating to Tx.n was a good move. The
instability of Fedora's Transifex instance could lead to problems when
submitting translations, making translators and developers frustrated
when a translation doesn't end in a final version or when a deadline is
missed. I'm also sure that new features offered by Tx.n will help the
translation community to do a better job, what means an operating system
with better translations.
From my early experience on Fedora I realize that strong translation
communities means strong regional communities because people feel
supported and glad to use and contribute to Fedora in their mother
language. I have seen the great improvement made by the Transifex
developers during the years and how things got better if compared to my
early days as a translator. That´s why I'm also confident that we are
moving to the right direction now.
--
Igor Pires Soares
Fedora Ambassador (Brazil) - Member of FAmSCo
Fedora I18N/L10N QA
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Igor
--
trans mailing list
trans(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
--
PGP: 06853DF7
4814
days inactive
4817
days old
13 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Domingo Becker -
Igor Pires Soares -
Jared K. Smith -
Michael Hideo Smith -
Noriko Mizumoto -
Paul W. Frields -
Thomas Canniot -
Yuri Chornoivan -
Zoltan Hoppar