1 |
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:39:41 +0200 |
2 |
Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> > 2. Translation project leads and "official" language status. Any |
5 |
> > comments as to the changes here? |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Sure. I wanted to make it a bit less formal without lowering the |
8 |
> requirements. Now, the document sais that a language should be |
9 |
> backed up by a translation team where at least one member (the |
10 |
> translation project lead) has commit access. If this isn't the |
11 |
> case, then it is an "unsupported" language where the documents are |
12 |
> still published, but not linked. |
13 |
|
14 |
Fine with me; I assume the translators are okay with this, too. |
15 |
|
16 |
> > 3. Join-up process. No formal "X number of contributions per |
17 |
> > period Y." Works well enough for me, but then "how much does this |
18 |
> > potential recruit actually do for us" becomes subjective |
19 |
> > hand-waving. We would need a new metric to determine commitment |
20 |
> > over time. Ideas? |
21 |
> |
22 |
> I'm not sure we need one. Imo, the GDP project lead decides when |
23 |
> phase 2 starts (and as such when a mentor is assigned). From then |
24 |
> onwards, it is the mentor who is in charge of defining when the |
25 |
> recruitment can be started. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> If we need a more objective metric to start with, I'd rather do it |
28 |
> on timeframe ("... sufficient document changes over a term of at |
29 |
> least 4 months"), which holds twice then (first and second phase). |
30 |
> |
31 |
> After all, developers that have been less or inactive for some time |
32 |
> are slated to be retired anyhow, either fully (from the Gentoo |
33 |
> project) or from the GDP (removal of the GDP page and perhaps |
34 |
> cvsdoc commit rights). |
35 |
|
36 |
This makes sense. |
37 |
|
38 |
Alright, commit the thing. I like it. |