[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: sponsors for cvsl10n



Karsten Wade wrote:
Some questions about the Localization group 'cvsl10n' in the Fedora
Account System (FAS):

1. Do we have enough sponsors for the cvsl10n group?

2. Can we get at least one sponsor from each language team?


Most other mails on the same thread suggest, "one sponsor from each team (e.g. coordinator)". Although this sounds like an easier method, imho it is not scalable given the current size of the FLP. With >~80 sponsors for the cvsl10n group, it would become a necessity, putting in place guidelines for sponsorship and ensuring that they are adhered to. Especially, since the following needs to be tracked:

1. Coordinators/Sponsors for a team are active and respond
2. Coordinators/Sponsors for a team do not sponsor members from other teams without authorization

Additionally, in case of disputes or dormant teams, some guidelines have to be in place to over-ride the language team coordinator's authority (if we are assuming that only a coordinator or authorized member of a language team can sponsor new entrants to that team).

Secondly, it does not eradicate the current problem of:

1. Determining the identity/affiliations of the new entrant (unless the entrant chooses to disclose).

Reason being: The "Self:Introduction" mail is listed in the TQSG, but is not a hindrance to reach the queue. Unless the new entrant is "forcibly" made to mention the language team she/he would like to join, they can be waiting in the queue for eternity (or sponsored by someone clearing the queue).

Reiterating from an earlier suggestion about this[1], imho the introduction of an automatic additional step - "approval from the language coordinator" somewhere on the sponsorship page would help map the new entrant to a language and ensure that the coordinator can approve/disapprove of her/his membership either directly or indirectly.



3. We changed the name 'cvsdocs' to 'docs', since it no longer was
   about CVS access.  The same is true for 'cvsl10n'.  Do we want to
   change that to 'l10n'?

'l10n' works, however we need to make sure that all references are very carefully replaced. :-)

hth

Thanks
Runa


[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-trans-list/2008-November/msg00031.html
--
blog: http://runab.livejournal.com

irc:
mishti or runa_b on Freenode, Gimpnet, Mozilla, LinuxChix


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]