Is the FLSCo running our teams alone?
piotrdrag at gmail.com
Tue Aug 21 13:58:00 UTC 2012
2012/8/21 Kévin Raymond <shaiton at fedoraproject.org>:
> We have already tried to have a meeting years ago and it did not work
> (because of timezone).
> If it works, the best is the mailing list.
Yes, (bi-)weekly meetings were hardly a success.
> Yes, this "admininstrative" group could still be the FLSCo.
> But we can have a FAS group different than the FLSCo one. The FLSCo
> clearly understand the L10n process and help set the roadmap if
> needed, while the FAS group would be the guys having the right to
> accept/reject the L10n creation teams or mailing lists (also update
> their maintainers). Simpler if they are the same, but one can be FLSCo
> member for 2 years but l10n FAS administrator a longer time as he
> will master the team creation process and he would still be trust.
> (Also, I am not sure that we need to update the FLSCo member too
> frequently.. Therefor those two groups could be composed of the same
> The best is probably to create a new thread for that and to clearly
> explain all the change that would be made (with a wiki page). I'll try
> to write that but I am not sure when I am going to do it. Soon
I think there are two issues here. First, we need to make a new
elections for FLSCo ASAP. Last time we chose members was around F9, I
Some of them are not around anymore, and some new active people
appeared. That's you, Kévin. :)
Second issue is accepting new teams in Transifex. I don't think one
needs to be in FLSCo to do that. As long as a maintainer-to-be follows
our guidelines, I don't see a problem when respected member of FLP
accepts the request.
> FYI I've sent a TX message to all guys requesting a new team to let
> them start the process.
That's great! We already see the results. :)
More information about the trans