Is the FLSCo running our teams alone?
shaiton at fedoraproject.org
Sat Jul 14 08:52:45 UTC 2012
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Dimitri Glezos <glezos at transifex.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Kévin Raymond
> <shaiton at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> We get some requests about creating new teams, changing coordinators,
>> dealing with maintainers, transifex…
>> The ones really able to take actions are the FLSCo members, right?
> FLSCo is pretty much inactive for years now. I know some of the folks
> who were active back then lurk in the lists and respond to personal
> Kevin, I'm all in to have you participate more in FLP, seeing your
> work for Docs+L10n.
Ok, so what is the process to approve new team creation?
- They need to do all this things:
- We *should* refresh the above link
When shall we reject new team creation?
- When the team already exists
- If one ask to create a new team and he does not bother to create a
FAS account, ask to become maintainer (above link)… in a certain time
(a month?), we should deny the request. Other would be able to become
maintainer of this specific language like that.
- To be fair, we need to write to the requester in order to give him
the wiki/L10N_Maintainer link..
> So maybe this is a good time to discontinue FLSCo and just have, like
> GNOME, a couple of 'spokespeople' for FLP.
Yep, we can just drop all FLSCo references, even rename the cvsl10n
FAS group to simply l10n.
And define a clear process to handle team creation, change of team
coordinator (like filling ticket, do we have a BZ component?) and why
not a l10n-maintainer FAS group to know who bother in case of team
More information about the trans