Sorry about the delay in responding. Paul Frields and I collaborated tonight on a response, and I'll be glad to bring you up to speed. On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 16:11 -0500, Paul Gampe wrote: Paul W. Frields wrote: > > Outstanding Issues: > > 1. Translation Project disconnect - what do we need here in concrete > > terms? > > I had been approached a few times regarding this topic, but as yet do not > know exactly what is required. Is this project scoped somewhere I can > reference? We describe some of the needs below. They've also been voiced in some recent fedora-trans-list threads by L10n Project members, but no replies have been seen from the L10n leadership. The community created a Wiki page some time ago to flesh this out.[1] The goal is to create a way in which volunteer translators can work more fluidly with Fedora developers (where Fedora is the upstream source) and with documentation. A continuing problem is that neither the Documentation team nor the L10n team is sure what, exactly, they need. But to figure out the exact needs is going to require input from and discussion with the Red Hat teams involved. That needs to happen in community space. > > App rewrites and process changes? Red Hat internal group(s) > > originally had ownership of this, yet we've seen no progress in the past > > months... or year(s). > > The Red Hat internal group you are referring to here was approached to hand > over the code to the translation web applications which was done some time > ago. I am not sure what has happened since then, but depending on the > scope I may be able to help. Yes, that group said then they had no time to work on Fedora L10n infrastructure. Since Fedora Infrastructure now has resources where RH and non-RH community can collaborate, perhaps L10n is in a better position to seed this upstream work. Things needed: * CVS on elvis.r.c merged over to cvs.fedoraproject.org, including account migration and CLA completion by users (non-trivial). * Port existing Perl Web app to Python so it can be supported and maintained by the community. * Renewed vigorous and committed leadership from Translation Project leaders inside Red Hat, including embracing the Fedora leadership model.[2] > > 2. Content from RH, licensed under our terms (OPL w/no options). > > Was there a thread discussing the selection of this license? This was resolved internally at Red Hat between Mark Webbink and Content Services. It was done to align RHEL docs to be upstream/downstream of content from Fedora, so they both needed the same license[3]. = = = [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects#FedoraProjects [3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/Licensing/FAQ#RHELDocsLicense -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
