Minutes from the Fedora L10N coordination meeting

Yuri Chornoivan yurchor at ukr.net
Thu Feb 17 17:00:26 UTC 2011

написане Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:22:38 +0200, Thomas Canniot  
<thomas.canniot at 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 at 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.2011-02-15-13.00.html
>>>> 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.2011-02-15-13.00.log.html
>>> 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.

More information about the trans mailing list