Minutes from the Fedora L10N coordination meeting

[noriko]

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 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.

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_coordination.2011-02-16-13.00.log.html

noriko


> 
> - Hideo Sumisu
> 
> 
> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-02-16/fesco.2011-02-16-17.30.log.html
> --
> trans mailing list
> trans at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans