Hi there,
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[0], right?
We didn't have any election since Spring 2008 (Fedora 9), and I can read "From time to time, at least once every 3 Fedora releases, the entire membership of FLSCo will stand for re-election". You've done lots of work, but there is more do to. There will always be. If it's fine for you, that works.
Spending lots of time helping new translators and maintainers, I think that I could help the FLP more by joining the FLSCo. This is more a request than an application as what I am actually doing does not need really need an official status (yeah translators, you could help us all!). I am actually one of the Fedora Project maintainers at transifex.net, but don't think that I should approve/cancel new team creation for example. I also try not to do too much, as people start referring to me for really specific questions, that IMHO only rely to the FLSCo (like team creation, changing teams coordinator…)
What's your opinion? I am sure many translators don't even know that we have a steering committee.
[0] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Steering_Committee
A steering committee? This is my first time hearing this.
I haven't notice of that committee. And this is working? How can any contact them? Who are they?
Regards, Sylvia
El vie, 29-06-2012 a las 22:50 +0800, Christopher Meng escribió:
A steering committee? This is my first time hearing this.
--
Best Regards, Christopher Meng------'Cicku'
Ambassador/Contributor of Fedora Project and Contributor of GNU. Blog:http://cicku.me Twitter:@cickumqt Hope you can visit and leave some comments. More Contact info see here:http://about.me/cicku
-- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Kévin Raymond shaiton@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[0], 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 emails.
Kevin, I'm all in to have you participate more in FLP, seeing your work for Docs+L10n.
So maybe this is a good time to discontinue FLSCo and just have, like GNOME, a couple of 'spokespeople' for FLP.
-d
We didn't have any election since Spring 2008 (Fedora 9), and I can read "From time to time, at least once every 3 Fedora releases, the entire membership of FLSCo will stand for re-election". You've done lots of work, but there is more do to. There will always be. If it's fine for you, that works.
Spending lots of time helping new translators and maintainers, I think that I could help the FLP more by joining the FLSCo. This is more a request than an application as what I am actually doing does not need really need an official status (yeah translators, you could help us all!). I am actually one of the Fedora Project maintainers at transifex.net, but don't think that I should approve/cancel new team creation for example. I also try not to do too much, as people start referring to me for really specific questions, that IMHO only rely to the FLSCo (like team creation, changing teams coordinator…)
What's your opinion? I am sure many translators don't even know that we have a steering committee.
[0] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Steering_Committee
-- Kévin Raymond (shaiton) GPG-Key: A5BCB3A2 -- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
Is perfect to me!
El vie, 29-06-2012 a las 10:54 -0700, Dimitri Glezos escribió:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Kévin Raymond 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[0], 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 emails.
Kevin, I'm all in to have you participate more in FLP, seeing your work for Docs+L10n.
So maybe this is a good time to discontinue FLSCo and just have, like GNOME, a couple of 'spokespeople' for FLP.
-d
We didn't have any election since Spring 2008 (Fedora 9), and I can read "From time to time, at least once every 3 Fedora releases, the entire membership of FLSCo will stand for re-election". You've done lots of work, but there is more do to. There will always be. If it's fine for you, that works.
Spending lots of time helping new translators and maintainers, I think that I could help the FLP more by joining the FLSCo. This is more a request than an application as what I am actually doing does not need really need an official status (yeah translators, you could help us all!). I am actually one of the Fedora Project maintainers at transifex.net, but don't think that I should approve/cancel new team creation for example. I also try not to do too much, as people start referring to me for really specific questions, that IMHO only rely to the FLSCo (like team creation, changing teams coordinator…)
What's your opinion? I am sure many translators don't even know that we have a steering committee.
[0] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Steering_Committee
-- Kévin Raymond (shaiton) GPG-Key: A5BCB3A2 --
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Dimitri Glezos glezos@transifex.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Kévin Raymond shaiton@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[0], 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 emails.
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: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Maintainer - 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 administration needs.
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Kévin Raymond shaiton@fedoraproject.org wrote:
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 administration needs.
Sounds like a plan to me.
-d
2012/7/16 Dimitri Glezos glezos@transifex.com:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Kévin Raymond shaiton@fedoraproject.org wrote:
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 administration needs.
Sounds like a plan to me.
I did a couple of Team creation last march and I found what the process should be at least.
Sorry my bad. I forgotten to update the wiki pages accordingly.
Steps:
- Presentation letter to trans list. - Membership in cvsl10n fas group. - The new maintainer should edit L10N_Teams page [1] at the wiki. - Edit owners.list [2] which contains information for bugzilla components and submit it to trans list so a L10N admin guy would review it and upload it to the git repo.
I saw some new Team creation requests. We can check these steps again and process those pending requests. Anyone interested, please start with the first step, the presentation letter to this list.
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Teams
[2] http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=l10n/owners.git;a=blob_plain;f=owners.lis...
kind regards
Domingo Becker (es)
On 2012年07月18日 08:25, Domingo Becker wrote:
2012/7/16 Dimitri Glezosglezos@transifex.com:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Kévin Raymond shaiton@fedoraproject.org wrote:
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 administration needs.
Sounds like a plan to me.
I did a couple of Team creation last march and I found what the process should be at least.
Sorry my bad. I forgotten to update the wiki pages accordingly.
Steps:
- Presentation letter to trans list.
- Membership in cvsl10n fas group.
- The new maintainer should edit L10N_Teams page [1] at the wiki.
- Edit owners.list [2] which contains information for bugzilla
components and submit it to trans list so a L10N admin guy would review it and upload it to the git repo.
I saw some new Team creation requests. We can check these steps again and process those pending requests. Anyone interested, please start with the first step, the presentation letter to this list.
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Teams
[2] http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=l10n/owners.git;a=blob_plain;f=owners.lis...
Thanks Domingo, it is clear! The page for maintainer [1] may be needed to update accordingly. Btw, do we still need cvsl10n group membership?
[1]:http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Maintainer
noriko
kind regards
Domingo Becker (es)
trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
Few months ago when I was editting the wiki of this page in chinese,I dont know this group is what... I also want to know.Thanks.
2012/7/17 Noriko Mizumoto noriko.mizumoto@gmail.com:
Thanks Domingo, it is clear! The page for maintainer [1] may be needed to update accordingly. Btw, do we still need cvsl10n group membership?
Yes, we do.
In some point, the maintainer will need to update wiki pages, publish some content in docs.fedoraproject.org or sponsor new team members, and he/she will need a fas account.
From the sysadmin point of view, that fas account should belong to a
group, for administrative purposes. Our group's name is cvsl10n. It may be renamed to something else if we want to. We will need to file a ticket in Fedora Infrastructure.
kind regards
Domingo Becker
On 2012年06月30日 03:54, Dimitri Glezos wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Kévin Raymond shaiton@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[0], 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 emails.
Kevin, I'm all in to have you participate more in FLP, seeing your work for Docs+L10n.
So maybe this is a good time to discontinue FLSCo and just have, like GNOME, a couple of 'spokespeople' for FLP.
-d
We didn't have any election since Spring 2008 (Fedora 9), and I can read "From time to time, at least once every 3 Fedora releases, the entire membership of FLSCo will stand for re-election". You've done lots of work, but there is more do to. There will always be. If it's fine for you, that works.
Spending lots of time helping new translators and maintainers, I think that I could help the FLP more by joining the FLSCo. This is more a request than an application as what I am actually doing does not need really need an official status (yeah translators, you could help us all!). I am actually one of the Fedora Project maintainers at transifex.net, but don't think that I should approve/cancel new team creation for example. I also try not to do too much, as people start referring to me for really specific questions, that IMHO only rely to the FLSCo (like team creation, changing teams coordinator…)
What's your opinion? I am sure many translators don't even know that we have a steering committee.
Kevin, my vote will definitely go to you. My problem is that I have not enough knowledge how to run election. Whatever the name is, this group needs to be active and be responsible inside also outside.
To me, what is the best and convenient way for everyone to select our representatives?
noriko
-- Kévin Raymond (shaiton) GPG-Key: A5BCB3A2 -- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
On শুক্রবার 29 জুন 2012 11:24 অপরাহ্ণ, Dimitri Glezos wrote:
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 emails.
Kevin, I'm all in to have you participate more in FLP, seeing your work for Docs+L10n.
So maybe this is a good time to discontinue FLSCo and just have, like GNOME, a couple of 'spokespeople' for FLP.
While I do agree that having Kevin for more administrative duty is a good move, I don't think a decision like 'discontinuing FLSCo' should be taken without any discussion. FWIW, FLSCo is an official representation of the FLP at Fedora and without a well set-up alternative would lead to the FLP losing its voice. The FLSCo did have a set of rules of elections. It is a different matter that they were not followed as well as they should have been. IMHO, whether the FLSCo is revived or an alternative is formed, the focus of the group should remain on keeping the FLP members and other teams engaged about the activities of FLP.
I suggest we either have a meeting about this sometime or start a conversation on the mailing list.
regards Runa
While I do agree that having Kevin for more administrative duty is a good move, I don't think a decision like 'discontinuing FLSCo' should be taken without any discussion. FWIW, FLSCo is an official representation of the FLP at Fedora and without a well set-up alternative would lead to the FLP losing its voice. The FLSCo did have a set of rules of elections. It is a different matter that they were not followed as well as they should have been. IMHO, whether the FLSCo is revived or an alternative is formed, the focus of the group should remain on keeping the FLP members and other teams engaged about the activities of FLP.
I suggest we either have a meeting about this sometime or start a conversation on the mailing list.
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, 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 team).
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 hopefully..
Domingo, I forgot your answer and yesterday I've updated the maintainer wiki page. It probably needs more details or to be rewritten with your steps.. Will see later if not done by that time ;). FYI I've sent a TX message to all guys requesting a new team to let them start the process.
Cheers,
2012/8/21 Kévin Raymond shaiton@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 team).
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 hopefully..
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 think. 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. :)
-
Christopher Meng -
Dimitris Glezos -
Domingo Becker -
Kévin Raymond -
Noriko Mizumoto -
Piotr Drąg -
Runa Bhattacharjee -
Sylvia Sánchez