Hi,
--
make me rich, buy my Inkscape book http://is.gd/yq5OD0 ;)
2013/12/18 Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 02:33:17PM +0100, S.Kemter wrote:So we actually want to consider the case where:
> Hi,
>
> 2013/12/18 Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 01:40:44PM +0100, S.Kemter wrote:
> > First of all, I am still not convinced to get the pressure back to
> have an
> > FAS account for an submission, we agreed for F19 that that would be
> not
> > necessary but we had no way arround as you need one for the wiki.
> So there
> > was only two who used the way to send me something and I submitted
> it to
> > the wiki.
>
> Well you can still submit the file in the name of someone else.
>
> yeah but you are not the author, so how shall I notice that then?
* Joe takes a pictures and puts it on flicker under CC-BY-SA
* Jane sees the picture and likes it a lot
* Jane wants to submit it to nuancier
* Jane does not want to create a FAS account
* Jane asks Dave to upload the picture taken by Joe for her
??
wowowow, just make it simple possible to submit without FAS account. For F19 we had already the case that somebody submitted the work of somebody else with another license. You always question me, why I have to disqualify if its not correct licensed eg but in this case the author changed the license after an conversation.
Who should get the badge then? Joe, who took the picture? Jane, who saw and
liked the picture and thought it would make a good wallpaper for Fedora? Dave
who agreed with Jane and actually did the work?
first of all, no FAS account no page at badges.fp.o or? But the question was already raised during the last submission period as we had the case. I raised already the question remember and we had an discussion about on IRC "to crawl the internet for good pictures, is also considered valuable contribution and a badge should be awarded" not me who said that!
And what if Jane gave the idea to Johan that knew someone in the Fedora
community and thus asked Gustave who could submit the artwork and Gustave too
busy told Johan that Dave should be able to?
I mean, we can probably make it as complex as we want, but at the end I think
the simpler the better:
* author: the person that made the artwork
* submiter: the person that submitted the artwork
Note:: To submit atm one still has to be CLA+1 (same restriction as for voting)
for submission that was never asked for, just for the voting
Fixed
> > for the rules:
> > * comfortaa is bad to read
>
> I used it because it was on the mockups, I am fine with using the
> standard
> fonts.
>
> its fine for headlines, but not for content
Fixed
> > * it's unclear that the name for the submission is meant with that
>
> Would 'Title' be better? (see previous discussion with Kirk)
>
> yes
Then the titles becomes "Unicorn rocks pandas-by-mizmo"? And we display it as
> > * tried to upload a file with the name "test" took endless long and
> > failed, can we rename them with "name-by-author-size.*" that is
> what has
> > do be done anyway
>
> See above.
> Otherwise, I can think of 2 options:
> 1) we can split the submission onto two pages but I don't think that
> this is nice.
> 2) I add a 'test submission' button that checks if the title is unique
> and
> inform the user if it is not.
>
> the renaming would be easier, somebody might have submitted a file named
> "flower" but definitly not flower-by-name.*
such?
isnt there a difference between file name and name?
The current wiki pages pretty much says that any licenses from this page is
> > * the upload takes way to long, fear we have to do the test after
> the
> > upload otherwise, somebody with a lot of submissions will break up
> after a
> > few
>
> See above.
> The file is uploaded as part of the form, so I cannot check before if
> the data
> submitted is valid or not.
>
> I think the check of sizes take that long, not of the other data. I think
> the split of the submission would be nicer, when its done the right way
>
> > as the question for the licenses already came up
> >
> > CC0
> > CC-BY
> > CC-BY-SA
> > DSL
> > Free Art
>
> No other licenses are accepted?
>
> that are the licenses from
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses_3 who makes sense
> for pictures
fine, that's why I went for the text field instead of the drop-down list.
But I'm fine only allowing these 5 licenses if that's what we want
(see below)
please read, there are differences between "content" and "code" licenses
Fixed using drop-down list, no default and no license is not a valid choice :)
> > but here please no autofill! So when dropdown, with an empty field
> and
> > that should not allowed, so that the submitter has to choose!
>
> Well CC-BY-SA will be the default (first) option.
>
> please not, simple the submitter will use it without knowing what it is.
> We have to make sure he CHOOSE it
Well that's the information that will be given to the submiter, so it has to be
> > Review:
> >
> > * for what purpose is the text field on the end?
>
> Explain why a candidate is rejected
>
> your second submission eg has to be rejected " brand or trademark" ;)
something "nice" and self-explanatory, "Images contains a brand" is a valid
reason to reject a submission :)
There are more reasons ;)
br gnokii
Pierre
--
make me rich, buy my Inkscape book http://is.gd/yq5OD0 ;)
_______________________________________________ design-team mailing list design-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/design-team
