On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:39:41 +0200
Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o> 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.

> > 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.