Minutes from the Fedora L10N coordination meeting

Paul W. Frields stickster at gmail.com
Thu Feb 17 20:59:25 UTC 2011


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 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.

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


More information about the trans mailing list