On Friday 19 January 2007 03:49, Karsten Wade wrote:
Sorry about the delay in responding. Paul Frields and I
tonight on a response, and I'll be glad to bring you up to speed.
Same here ;)
We describe some of the needs below. They've also been voiced in
recent fedora-trans-list threads by L10n Project members, but no replies
have been seen from the L10n leadership.
Sorry to ask, but could you point me at a url for the thread and I'll follow
The community created a Wiki
page some time ago to flesh this out.
Do you mean this page? 
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.
Right good goal. What would be a workflow for example?
A continuing problem is that neither the Documentation team nor the
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.
Sure. I note the above wiki lists 20:00 UTC as a potential irc meeting time.
That time wont work for Asia so perhaps we need to consider two meeting
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.
* CVS on elvis.r.c merged over to cvs.fedoraproject.org
So this might be an issue as elvis.r.c holds a super-set of what we localize
for Fedora. Who concluded this was a requirement?
including account migration
I may be wrong here, but I thought the Fedora Infrastructure team was working
on a SSO architecture. Would it not make more sense to leverage that
and CLA completion by users (non-trivial).
I am sure there is a good reason but just wanted to check why this is
necessary? Given we are dealing with over 1000 accounts we have to do this
via automation. Is there an API for this?
* Port existing Perl Web app to Python so it can be supported and
maintained by the community.
I'm sure the community can support Perl :) This does not seem like a real
* Renewed vigorous and committed leadership from Translation Project
leaders inside Red Hat, including embracing the Fedora leadership
So are you saying the Fedora translation teams need to approach the Fedora
board for official approval? We have identified community leaders for
languages with >5 contributors are you saying each language must complete
> > 2. Content from RH, licensed under our terms (OPL w/no
> 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.
Thanks, I'm reviewing the discussion with Mark now.
Paul Gampe - Red Hat, <pgampe(a)redhat.com>