On 06/22/2011 05:13 AM, noriko wrote: > Yp, thanks for this input! If this is the case I also disagree. > So far, I do not see any manpower requested in this RFR, but I can see > that there is the project team already formed and it asks for only > approval from Infra team on consuming certain resources. Yes - you essentially want Infra to agree to/"approve" something that we don't even know that people want to try out, because still to this day I do not see anything on trans@ even asking if they are remotely interested in this. My opinion here, but I think it would be wise to let this drop until that happens, and once it does, and a group from trans@ is actually interested and wanting to try this out, a new thread can open at that point. Right now, you're asking Infra to devote resources to a project that we don't even know that the core group using it will even want to try. There is a translation solution in place, and I've not seen anyone list problems with that one that Zanata solves. The point is, going back and forth on this without several things happening is pointless: 1) See if there is any interest in trans@ 2) If such a group forms, have them compile a list that clearly states what Zanata solves that TX (our current solution) does not. 3) At that point, it would probably be safe to open a new thread here, including that list, and seeing if it's worthwhile to pursue this. Until those things happen, this is seemingly just going to go back and forth without anything happening. Multiple people from infra have mentioned what needs to happen for this to go any further, and I see no one taking those steps. As Mike strongly hinted a few emails back, please let this one drop until that happens. _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
