On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 06:22:34PM -0700, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:39:41 +0200
> Sven Vermeulen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > 2. Translation project leads and "official" language status. Any
> > > comments as to the changes here?
> > Sure. I wanted to make it a bit less formal without lowering the
> > requirements. Now, the document sais that a language should be
> > backed up by a translation team where at least one member (the
> > translation project lead) has commit access. If this isn't the
> > case, then it is an "unsupported" language where the documents are
> > still published, but not linked.
> Fine with me; I assume the translators are okay with this, too.
Ok with this. The draft looks fine to me.
> > > 3. Join-up process. No formal "X number of contributions per
> > > period Y." Works well enough for me, but then "how much does this
> > > potential recruit actually do for us" becomes subjective
> > > hand-waving. We would need a new metric to determine commitment
> > > over time. Ideas?
> > I'm not sure we need one. Imo, the GDP project lead decides when
> > phase 2 starts (and as such when a mentor is assigned). From then
> > onwards, it is the mentor who is in charge of defining when the
> > recruitment can be started.
> > If we need a more objective metric to start with, I'd rather do it
> > on timeframe ("... sufficient document changes over a term of at
> > least 4 months"), which holds twice then (first and second phase).
> > After all, developers that have been less or inactive for some time
> > are slated to be retired anyhow, either fully (from the Gentoo
> > project) or from the GDP (removal of the GDP page and perhaps
> > cvsdoc commit rights).
> This makes sense.
> Alright, commit the thing. I like it.