Minutes from the Fedora L10N coordination meeting

Mike Hideo mhideo at redhat.com
Thu Feb 17 23:18:19 UTC 2011

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 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.

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


More information about the trans mailing list