13:00:00 <glezos> #startmeeting
13:00:00 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Feb 15 13:00:00 2011 UTC.  The chair is glezos. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:00:00 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
13:00:05 <glezos> Hello all
13:00:17 <glezos> Welcome to a new Fedora L10n meeting, it's been a while. Pardon the dust. =)
13:00:28 <glezos> Let's see -- who is here?
13:00:36 * jsmith is here
13:00:37 <Bouska> .fasinfo
13:00:37 <zodbot> Bouska: (fasinfo <username>) -- Return information on a Fedora Account System username.
13:00:45 <glezos> Dimitris Glezos (el)
13:00:47 <arrbee> Runa Bhattacharjee (Bengali India)
13:00:53 * stickster here
13:00:55 <shaiton> Kevin Raymond (fr)
13:00:56 <Raven46> Piotr Drąg (pl)
13:00:57 <noriko> Noriko Mizumoto (Japanese)
13:00:57 <Bouska> Pablo Martin-Gomez (fr)
13:01:02 <dbecker> Domingo Becker (es)
13:01:04 <_logan_> Daniel Cabrera (es)
13:01:08 * ankit here
13:01:09 <apeter> Ani Peter (ml)
13:01:21 <sweta> Sweta Kothari (gu)
13:02:17 <glezos> Good stuff. Thanks all for coming, especially the folks from early or late hours (noriko, US folks:)
13:02:25 <krishna> krishnababu (te)
13:02:35 <noriko> np
13:02:38 <glezos> Some proposed meeting topics can be found here: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/trans/2011-February/008596.html
13:02:51 <glezos> They are quite a few for 1h, so we need to be a bit focused and quick.
13:03:20 <glezos> Software Freeze for Fedora 15 is *today* (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/15/Schedule)
13:04:04 <glezos> #topic Transifex migration to http://www.transifex.net/projects/p/fedora/
13:05:04 <glezos> We discussed the challenges of maintaining our own downstream Tx instance on the mailing list, at FUDCon, in #fedora-admin and on various tickets in the past year
13:05:43 <glezos> The current plan is to migrate to the upstream version of Transifex.net which me and diegobz are closely maintaining.
13:06:11 <dbecker> I don't know anything about what was discussed at FUDCon.
13:06:16 <arrbee> +1
13:06:20 <glezos> dbecker: me neither, I wasn't really there.
13:06:23 <dbecker> Would you comment a little more?
13:06:33 <jsmith> glezos: I've got to be honest here -- I think that's a good idea, but I want to make sure it's been communicated clearly and the full impact has been thought through
13:06:35 * arrbee would like to know more about the discussion
13:07:06 * glezos giving the background he knows
13:07:15 <jsmith> (both from an infrastructure standpoint, and how it affects Fedora's downstream)
13:07:22 <glezos> I dropped the idea of moving to Txn a few months ago.
13:07:39 <Bouska> for me this is a big fail for the fedora project
13:07:54 <stickster> Bouska: Let's not get into hyperbole, we're just discussing possibilities right now. Thanks!
13:08:09 <stickster> There are a *lot* of reasons why a migration makes sense.
13:08:15 <glezos> Our problem with translate.fedoraproject.org is lack of maintainers. The learning curve of maintianing proper packages, managing the servers and upgrading every a few months has shown to be a blocker. We end up having an outdated version of Tx, which is not working and our L10n suffers.
13:08:51 <stickster> glezos: That's an excellent summary of the issues we've run into maintaining our own hosted Tx instance.
13:08:52 <glezos> dbecker has worked a lot in producing 0.9 RPMs but we haven't been able to support him in updating the servers. And that's for 0.9 only -- Tx is now about to release 1.1
13:09:38 <glezos> We have raised the alarm of new maintainers needed numerous time on the list, and we've formed a bigger l10n-admin group in hope that the load will be splitted to more people.
13:10:55 <glezos> Finding L10n admins is very hard, and that's why very few projects have self-hosted L10n Services. Freedesktop.org, Django, Mercurial, Creative Commons.. even MeeGO have switched to upstream Tx versions for this reason.
13:10:59 <dbecker> Yes, but it seems that didn't happened.
13:11:11 <stickster> glezos: My main concern with the migration is it seems like Infrastructure has decided to move, but really hasn't communicated elsewhere outside the L10n team. The L10n team is certainly the *biggest* customer but not the only team concerned with the move
13:11:28 <jsmith> stickster: +1
13:11:55 <glezos> stickster: indeed. I'm sure we (both -trans and -admin) could have done a better job in communicating more.
13:11:56 <Raven46> stickster: in fact l10n team is less concerned then the software maintainers
13:11:56 <stickster> But at the same time, I actually am in *favor* of a migration that allows L10n to work better, and eliminates some of the issues they've encountered, as long as the authentication issues, etc. are worked out
13:12:24 <glezos> stickster: The migration has two areas that need communication:
13:12:32 <glezos> 1. Migration to another host
13:12:33 <stickster> Raven46: True, this would affect software developers using our hosted Tx instance
13:12:37 <glezos> 2. Upgrade to Tx 1.0
13:13:08 <glezos> The first affects translators, since we need to create new translation teams on Transifex.net (this would need to happen if we upgraded to 0.9 on Fedora too)
13:13:33 <glezos> The latter affects other stakeholders, since Tx 1.0 now has a command-line interface to pull translations right before a release (this can be integrated into makefile rules for automation)
13:14:09 <glezos> The good news is that the first should be ready and well-communicated by the string freeze, and the latter by the devel freeze (in one month)
13:14:16 <glezos> The bad news is the same ^^.
13:14:18 * stickster thinks we should use more #info and stuff with meetbot for easier minutes :-)
13:14:47 <dbecker> glezos: we are at the software string freeze. How much time do you need for the move to transifex.net?
13:14:51 <stickster> glezos: The string freeze is today -- can it really be well communicated if that happens today?
13:15:16 <glezos> Good question. I think we should slip the string freeze a few days. E.g. 5 days.
13:15:51 <dbecker> I guess software maintainers has the least work. But for translator, one month used to be enough, and you will be using some of our translations days for the move.
13:16:18 <Bouska> huh ? we are planning to migrate to tx.net before the string freeze ?
13:16:26 <glezos> dbecker: well, to be honest, I can move the most important projects in 1 day.
13:16:32 <dbecker> how long would it take to have the new infrastructure working?
13:16:48 <dbecker> 1 day?   That's good news!
13:16:48 * Raven46 can help with establishing projects on tx.net
13:16:51 <glezos> The infra is already working:
13:16:51 <glezos> http://www.transifex.net/projects/p/fedora/r/fedora-15/
13:17:04 <ankit> hmm, So, It's already *decided* that we are migrating to Tx.net !!!
13:17:08 <glezos> We just need to gradually move the projects. In the meantime, translators can request teams and we'll approve them right away.
13:17:12 <stickster> #idea glezos suggests slipping string freeze
13:17:15 <jsmith> glezos: How does that work with regards to authentication?
13:17:23 <noriko> sorry guys I did not think that the decision has been made.
13:17:33 <jsmith> glezos: Would each contributor have to sign up for an account on tx.net?
13:17:47 <jsmith> glezos: Or is there some sort of FAS authentication being worked on?
13:17:49 <diegobz> dbecker: for translators, one day or something, once we just need to register the projects and push translations to Tx. After it Translators can start working with no problem.
13:17:51 * glezos suggests one question at a time.
13:17:59 <ankit> noriko: from the conversation it looks like
13:18:24 <glezos> I have created the fedora project there as a proof-of-concept. It's just a page showing statistics. It does not mean we decided anything. We are the L10n, we decide together.
13:18:33 <noriko> ankit: I was not given a chance to vote on that if so...
13:18:56 <glezos> jsmith: Txn has its own account system. Teams are defined with langauge coordinators here: http://www.transifex.net/projects/p/fedora/teams/
13:19:43 <jsmith> glezos: Can you elaborate on what  'team' means?  I'm not sure I understand the implications of a 'team'
13:19:50 <Bouska> to add to the questions of jsmith : the translator will not have to sign the cla anymore ?
13:19:50 <glezos> jsmith: There is no support in FAS or any open standard to share teams etc, and from what I understand, Infra does not consider the lack of FAS a blocker.
13:20:13 <diegobz> jsmith: people related to a language under the Fedora project
13:20:27 <glezos> jsmith: We already enforce the CLA before joining a team too, and if I understood correctly, spot gave the green light from legal (please correct me if I'm wrong)
13:21:05 <diegobz> jsmith: so people under the pt_BR team can only send stuff for the Brazillian Portugues language
13:21:06 <glezos> jsmith: Language teams control the files of one language (e.g. fr). It has one or more lang coordinators who control who joins the team. New team members can request to join the team.
13:21:24 <jsmith> OK, that makes sense.
13:22:00 <glezos> Bouska: they _have_ to sign the CLA to join the team.
13:22:21 <glezos> any other questions?
13:22:26 <dbecker> glezos, diegobz: but FAS support can be added later if it's needed, right?   I don't think this is blocker.
13:23:04 <jsmith> glezos: Has the impact on downstream (things like Fedora Hosted or RHEL) been taken into consideration?
13:23:07 <glezos> dbecker: We can have openId supported on Txn if needed. To do this, FAS needs to become an OpenID provider, and IIRC this is not stable yet.
13:23:08 <pingou> http://www.transifex.net/accounts/register/ -> where is the cla ?
13:23:18 <diegobz> Bouska: Txn has  support for CLA
13:23:22 <CodeBlock> Infra is pretty much unianimously okay with not having FAS integratoin.
13:23:35 <glezos> pingou: the CLA is shown when you join a Fedora team. http://www.transifex.net/projects/p/fedora/teams/
13:23:35 <CodeBlock> *integratoin
13:23:40 <CodeBlock> *integration, man
13:23:51 <glezos> #info Infra is pretty much unianimously okay with not having FAS integration.
13:23:52 <pingou> glezos: ok
13:23:54 <diegobz> pingou: It's per project. Each project has the ability of enabling CLA
13:23:58 <Bouska> diegobz: ok, question anserwed :)
13:24:23 <glezos> jsmith: I believe this new setup is much better for downstream projects.
13:25:09 <jsmith> glezos: It very well may be, but if we don't communicate with them and get their input on it, we risk souring the relationship
13:25:11 <glezos> jsmith: By being hosted on an upstream Translation server, other communities can participate more. Also, Tx 1.0 does not require commit access to one's git repo, so projects like virt- which are not fedorahosted-hosted (behind a firewall) can be translated freely.
13:25:23 <jsmith> glezos: To steal a quote from stickster -- "Surprise is the opposite of engagement"
13:25:34 <stickster> jsmith: That's actually from a Mozilla guy, by way of poelcat :-)
13:25:39 <glezos> jsmith: do you have any particular problems you see in the horizon?
13:26:24 <jsmith> glezos: I know that we've changed the way we do l10n several times over the past few years, and every time we make a change we seem to get a lot of pushback, either from individual contributors or from downstream communities
13:26:25 <zoglesby> glezos: Tx 1.0 still supports write access, but its not a requirement, correct?
13:26:52 * stickster sees a few things that haven't been communicated or settled:
13:27:06 <jsmith> glezos: My biggest concern is one of communication
13:27:09 <stickster> 1. Migration plans for Fedora-as-an-upstream code and Fedora docs
13:27:10 <glezos> zoglesby: no. Tx 1.0 does not support pushing to git repos (it does support source file tracking over HTTP). Developers can use a command-line client to pull files anytime they want.
13:27:24 <glezos> You can find full info on 1.0 here -- http://help.transifex.net/user-guide/one-dot-zero.html
13:27:26 <stickster> 2. Packaging of Tx client for use by migrating projects
13:27:35 <glezos> jsmith: +1
13:27:52 <stickster> 3. Schedule impact and communication with the Fedora program manager (rbergeron)
13:28:14 <glezos> jsmith: But that's why we have discussion lists and trans@fpo. Downstreams which are affected by the choices of the Fedora L10n Project should keep an eye on this list.
13:28:50 <jsmith> glezos: I suggest we take a more active role in communicating this, and not just expect people to catch it on the mailing lists
13:29:03 <dbecker> Suppose the move is decided, if we need minor Tx modification or improvements, will we have the commitment of Tx developers so we (translators) are not blocked anymore?
13:29:11 <stickster> glezos: As we've always found in the past, requiring other people to read one list isn't a cure-all... For instance when I worked on Docs, we always tried to take care to post things especially to trans@ to help everyone's awareness :-)
13:29:25 <jsmith> glezos: While they *should* be on the list and paying attention, I think it's in our own best interest to be more active in our communication
13:29:44 <jsmith> (stickster always says it more eloquently than jsmith)
13:30:04 <glezos> jsmith, stickster: Agreed, of course.
13:30:32 * glezos notes that's also one of the reasons we have FUDCons. =)
13:30:32 <stickster> dbecker: If there are modifications or improvements that need to be made, I would expect glezos and his coding staff are going to be *very* incented to look at those carefully and make them happen anytime they make sense
13:31:04 <stickster> dbecker: The problems we've had in the Fedora instance are partly due to a big delay between them fixing a problem, and the fix being deployed on the Fedora instance.
13:31:10 <glezos> dbecker: we are devoted to have a solid service.
13:31:21 <jsmith> My second concern is the schedule -- whether it's a fair assessment or not, it feels to me like we're trying to rush this decision
13:31:45 <glezos> jsmith: +1
13:31:46 * stickster notes that the FUDCon in Tempe happened quite late in the development cycle so we are really pushed up against string freeze
13:31:50 <jsmith> Does everyone agree that it makes sense to do this for F15?  Would it make more sense to wait until after the F15 cycle?
13:32:17 <jsmith> (I don't really care one way or the other -- I just want to get input from the people most affected by the decision.)
13:32:18 <Raven46> ok, but are you sure software maintainers are going to tx pull translations? 9 of 10 projects I translate on tx.net just don't care and stopped being updated
13:32:19 <stickster> The Infra team may have discussed this quite intensely, but I still haven't seen a meeting of other minds like Docs, important Fedora-hosted project teams, etc.
13:32:32 <arrbee> Well, we can go on discussing the issue about consensus or communication, but it looks like tx.net is the best option at present to get a system in place that will allow translators to work in a *functioning* framework.
13:32:32 <arrbee> However, I'd like to see it as a temporary solution and during that time set our home in order. Get our process in place, find admins who are willing to maintain our translation system. I'd rather like to see FLP back home on Fedora. I don't have anything against tx.net, it is  an emotional attachment.
13:32:33 <arrbee> Can we keep an option open to get it back?
13:32:50 <glezos> This is a good question, which is the core reason for having this meeting. What are the translator's experience with the current Tx setup? CAN WE have a good Fedora 15 release if we stick with fedora.fpo for now?
13:32:59 <dbecker> jsmith: I prefer to do this for F15.
13:33:01 <shaiton> jsmith, our transifex instance is not really working right now...
13:33:24 <Raven46> shaiton: it's working well for me atm
13:33:41 <shaiton> Raven46, not for every projects
13:33:56 <shaiton> we always have to refresh, try and try again for specefic ones
13:34:00 <stickster> arrbee: I agree that there's a strong emotional attachment. However, the practical situation is that we've never yet been able to guarantee a vigorous team of maintainers for the in-house system, except for when glezos, diegobz, or another Tx guy was working on it.
13:34:35 <dbecker> Raven46: the problem is that it will fail when nobody is around to help you.
13:34:38 <jsmith> Let me throw out another random question -- does it have to be an all-or-nothing transition?
13:35:06 <arrbee> stickster: I agree, however I would not like FLP and Fedora Infra to throw in the towel forever
13:35:07 <glezos> jsmith: not really -- we can migrate some projects. But i don't see any benefit in that
13:35:08 <jsmith> Or does it just complicate things if some things are doing in one tool and some in another?
13:35:34 <stickster> glezos: I think the answer is that the hosted Tx 0.7 works OK for some people, poorly for some others
13:35:51 <ankit> how about keeping translate.fp.org alive as well as tx.net also serving the simillar needs? Is it possible?
13:35:52 <stickster> glezos: The uncertainty itself is a problem -- one that of course is probably fixed in 1.x
13:35:54 <shaiton> stickster, and still is very slow...
13:36:05 * glezos notes again that Txn is considered by many the upstream translation hub. Freedesktop.org projects are there etc. I don't see any reason why Fedora should live in its own island in terms of Translations.
13:36:19 <Raven46> freedesktop projects are not there
13:36:19 <stickster> jsmith: ankit: Having two systems seems very confusing from the contributor perspective.
13:36:26 <Raven46> there are just two fo them
13:36:37 <Raven46> of*
13:36:55 <Raven46> which stopped being updated after the transition to 1.0
13:36:59 <jsmith> stickster: I agree, and wouldn't want to do any longer than until after the F15 release -- Just wondering how that might minimize potential impact on F15 translation schedule.
13:37:03 <stickster> Raven46: Actually, quite a few are there. PulseAudio, PackageKit, PolicyKit-gnome...
13:37:21 <dbecker> I think it's better all projects. I would like to see translations statistic and teams management working.
13:37:28 <stickster> Raven46: Which ones stopped being updated?
13:37:33 <Raven46> stickster: have you seen any updates in their git repos recently?
13:37:34 <glezos> Raven46: The consensus between GNOME, KDE and fdo seems that we'll be hosting more projects there. This is my understanding after talking with them in FOSDEM.
13:37:46 <ankit> stickster: since we are hurrying up too much for this release, if we can keep both of them alive temporary, would help us to assess the real need and performance.. would also help us to assess which instance translators prefer --
13:38:14 <_logan_> I agree with Raven. As a translator I do not care how much about where to send my translations, but that they will be used... Package maintainers are aware of this possible transition?
13:38:50 <jsmith> _logan_: No, but I'm sure once a decision has been made, that we'll do everything we can to communicate this to package maintainers
13:38:51 <arrbee> +1 to _logan_
13:39:09 <Raven46> stickster: packagekit, shared-mime-info, yum, RPM, clutter, pulseaudio, just to name a few
13:39:09 <stickster> Raven46: I was looking for an example :-)
13:39:17 <stickster> Raven46: Thank you, nvm ^^ :-)
13:39:39 <dbecker> We will need to have Tx client packaged for that mater. I may work on that.
13:39:58 <glezos> dbecker: seth vidal and a number of people will help out.
13:41:00 <jsmith> I'd like to go back to sticker's list of three concerns, if we can
13:41:01 <stickster> #info A lot of good dialogue is happening in this meeting, but the minutes are going to be very scarce or hard to read. glezos, can you make sure to summarize something in terms of #action items?
13:41:02 <noriko> +1 to arrbee. and I applogize on be half of asgeir who is now unable to attend the problem. I like to keep my hope having another in-house admin soon.
13:41:03 <dbecker> Raven46: I always communicate when I need my translations to be used. Developers don't usually look at the last commits.
13:41:48 <glezos> jsmith: +1
13:42:47 <jsmith> 1) Migration plan
13:42:53 <glezos> #1: Migration plans: I sent an email to trans-list on how I migrated anaconda. Fedora docs can also be migrated with a small script (example: http://www.transifex.net/projects/p/fedora-docs-relnotes/)
13:43:17 <glezos> I can volunteer in migrating most of the projects, although anyone with a good connection can do it.
13:43:47 <jsmith> glezos: OK... as long as we have a plan in place on *how* to do the migrations, *when* to do the migrations, and who is responsible
13:43:50 <stickster> jsmith: glezos: So that sort of detail needs to also be communicated to places like devel-announce
13:44:08 <stickster> jsmith: glezos: And docs, probably
13:44:22 <jsmith> stickster: +2
13:44:30 <glezos> stickster: We can migrate all projects ourselves. The developer just needs to commit a file in his repo to easily pull translations later (optional)
13:45:05 <stickster> glezos: That would be for using the Tx CLI client?
13:45:17 <Raven46> about that... developers of intl-based projects won't love the need to store generated file in the git repo
13:45:23 <diegobz> stickster: yes
13:45:29 <Raven46> intltool*
13:45:57 <glezos> stickster: http://help.transifex.net/user-guide/client/client-0.4.html#for-developers
13:46:22 <stickster> Raven46: That's one of the reasons why I think this needs to be communicated more widely, to e.g. devel-announce. That way the project owners on the devel@ list can look at whether that's going to be a problem.
13:46:24 <diegobz> Raven46: to be honest, I think it's not a big deal...
13:46:25 <glezos> On the positive side, we can also create ready-to-use CLI client config files...
13:46:40 * stickster is failing to see the big deal, but admits he is not very wise in these matters :-)
13:47:38 <glezos> Raven46: storing the POT file in the repo is not mandatory. The developer can choose not to store it and just push it manually using the client every time he builds.
13:47:48 <glezos> (On 'make build': run 'tx push --source')
13:47:51 <glezos> stickster: Correct. But we don't want to block L10n because of personal preferences on whether a POT file should live in a git repo or not.
13:47:58 <Raven46> glezos: ok, I think that's acceptable
13:48:35 <stickster> glezos: +1.
13:48:46 <Raven46> but again, how are we going to convince 100+ developers to change their workflow? I see it almost impossible
13:49:45 <glezos> Raven46: That's the very reason the Fedora Project exists. To get people together and make them work more efficiently than everyone separately.
13:50:07 <glezos> Projects like Fedora and GNOME have strict policies because only this way so many people can collaborate.
13:50:19 <stickster> Raven46: I think it's less onerous than you think. Many of the developers don't really care where translation gets done, as long as (1) they can document on their project site where to do l10n work, and (2) they know how to get the results into their project and don't have to do a ton of work to switch.
13:50:20 <dbecker> Raven46: I guess we should ask and see what they think.
13:50:33 <stickster> dbecker: +1. Again, that's why I think we need to start having some #action items here.
13:50:47 <arrbee> dbecker: +1
13:51:11 <arrbee> and the faster we get their reactions, we can evaluate any problems that can crop up
13:52:08 <dbecker> We have a problem with our translation infrastructure and we think we can solve it this way. They will do the necessary adjustments like they did in the past.
13:52:16 <jsmith> OK, let's set some action items
13:52:18 <Raven46> ok, so we need to push the initial announcement, write some simple rules for developers to follow and then require them to follow the rules, make the migration and eat the fruit of our hard labor
13:52:48 <jsmith> #action jsmith to make announcement on devel-announce, once a decision has been made and a plan has been put in place
13:53:12 * jsmith welcomes help on writing the initial announcement
13:53:38 <jsmith> glezos: Can I put you down for leading the migration?
13:53:39 <stickster> jsmith: Before that, I would venture that you may want to get together with someone(s) on Infra, glezos, maybe dbecker, rbergeron... to talk about schedule impact on the string freeze. One of the first questions people will ask is how this affects that.
13:53:55 <zoglesby> and someone can school us docs guys up as well? (We are not very smart - jsmith and stickster)
13:53:59 <jsmith> stickster: Sure... absolutely!
13:54:17 <jsmith> zoglesby: Don't look at me -- I learned everything I know about l10n from stickster :-)
13:54:21 <glezos> jsmith: sure. But I can not lead the communication. I can only answer questions.
13:54:33 <jsmith> glezos: I'll help on the communication side :-)
13:54:49 <glezos> jsmith: I can help too, but I can't lead that. :)
13:55:11 <jsmith> OK, so I think we've tackled item number one on sticker's list, at least to a reasonable degree.
13:55:18 <jsmith> We've got the beginnings of a migration plan
13:55:40 <dbecker> If we want our translations to be used, we can not change software translation deadline.
13:55:40 <Raven46> but we don't have a decision yet
13:55:43 <jsmith> Mind if we move on to item two on stickster's list (tx.net client), and then onto three (schedule impact)?
13:56:23 <dbecker> glezos and diegobz will work on the projects move. I may work on packaging tx-client. What is left to be considered?
13:56:29 <jsmith> Raven46: Then maybe we should call for a vote?
13:57:00 <stickster> Raven46: Before calling for a vote, we need a statement of what people are voting on.
13:57:07 <stickster> oops, jsmith ^^
13:57:26 <dbecker> stickster: yep. We need a complete plan.
13:57:44 <jsmith> Right... my strategy was to get the plan together (who is doing what, etc.) and then vote on it as a package
13:57:56 <jsmith> Not just vote on the idea of making the move, but without any legs to get it done
13:58:34 <Raven46> jsmith: sure
13:58:42 <dbecker> jsmith +1
13:58:57 * arrbee would again like to suggest adding a return to fedora hosting within the scope of the vote. Thanks.
13:59:14 <jsmith> arrbee: Point taken.
13:59:21 <arrbee> Thanks jsmith
13:59:37 <jsmith> OK... then next point on stickster's infamous list is the tx.net client
13:59:50 <_logan_> + 1 arrbee. The decision does not have to be taken only by L10n. Package maintainers have to be involved.
13:59:51 <jsmith> Do we have a volunteer to lead that packaging and communication effort?
14:00:24 <noriko> +1 arrbee for a return.
14:00:46 <diegobz> jsmith: I think dbecker offered himself for packaging it
14:00:59 <jsmith> dbecker: Are you OK with that?
14:01:14 <glezos> jsmith: This person could probably not be a translator. This tool will be used by developers as well. I remember skvidal asking where is the code of it. :)
14:01:35 <glezos> dbecker: it's just a Python CLI tool, I think only 1 dep
14:01:41 <jsmith> Well, it's more than just packaging the client -- it's also documenting how to use it
14:01:43 <dbecker> #action dbecker will package tx-client
14:01:55 <jsmith> and how the process is different than the previous method
14:02:00 <diegobz> jsmith: we have the docs
14:02:02 <dbecker> jsmith: you've got the point
14:02:07 <jsmith> OK.
14:02:20 <diegobz> jsmith: http://help.transifex.net/user-guide/client/client-0.4.html
14:02:21 <dbecker> jsmith: I always fail in documenting my software  :-)
14:02:41 <jsmith> diegobz: That documents the client -- but does it document the *process* differences?
14:03:08 <glezos> jsmith: The process difference is here: http://help.transifex.net/user-guide/one-dot-zero.html
14:03:24 <glezos> jsmith: we could have some Fedora-specific instructions on our wiki too, if needed.
14:03:41 <jsmith> In other words, I want to do more than just say "Here's a new tool -- go use it".  I want to say "Here's a new tool.  Here's the instruction manual.  But here's how it's different from the old process, and why we think the change is beneficial"
14:03:52 * diegobz was about to suggest the last line from glezos too
14:03:59 * jsmith wants a volunteer to take the lead in that effort
14:04:16 <dbecker> we should announce tx-client availability and help developers in the process
14:04:17 <glezos> jsmith: I can help document.
14:04:27 * arrbee can help with the document
14:04:28 <glezos> jsmith: I can lead the documentation effort.
14:04:51 <stickster> #idea The announcement to devel-announce should include a link to the Fedora wiki page that describes the differences in process for developers, and the reasons for the change.
14:04:51 <arrbee> i.e. for user guide
14:04:57 <jsmith> #action glezos to lead client and process documentation effort, with help from others
14:05:11 <diegobz> jsmith: we have done that for txn, we probably just need a wiki page explaining that on Fedora's word
14:05:16 <jsmith> stickster: Yes, my announcement will carry that :-)
14:05:21 <diegobz> world*
14:05:22 <glezos> jsmith: we need a leader for the communication efforts.
14:05:41 <jsmith> glezos: I'm happy to do that on an overall basis, as long as I have support from people who actually know the details :-)
14:05:50 <glezos> jsmith: you'll have that.
14:05:59 <jsmith> Ok, that takes care of stickster's item number two
14:06:16 <jsmith> Moving on to item number tree -- schedule impact and communication with Fedora Program Manager (rbergeron)
14:07:23 <jsmith> This has the potential to negatively impact our release schedule
14:07:40 <jsmith> (assuming it's approved when we vote, of course)
14:08:06 <jsmith> So I want to put together a plan on the scheduling side of things
14:08:12 <dbecker> We should not change the schedule. If we affect someone in the process, that someone must only be L10N people.
14:08:17 <jsmith> Would the string freeze change?
14:08:23 <jsmith> Would we shorten the time for translation?
14:08:44 * stickster suggests that one way to minimize negative impact is for jsmith to set up a meeting with rbergeron, glezos + key L10n participants, skvidal + key Infrastructure participants, someone from Docs, and maybe a couple Devel representatives (one person from FESCo should suffice)
14:08:45 <jsmith> These are areas that I'm less involved in, and therefore I don't know all the mechanics of how this works currently
14:09:00 <glezos> diegobz: how much time do you think we'll need to push Fedora core projects? (ie not docs or websites)
14:09:02 <jsmith> I think that's a fair idea
14:09:05 <stickster> Actually, one L10n person, one Infra person should be enough.
14:09:15 <stickster> Just need a knowledgeable representative from each group.
14:09:29 <glezos> stickster: +1
14:09:36 <dbecker> If the change takes one or two days, that will be the only impact on us (l10n guys).
14:09:47 <noriko> +1 dbecker
14:10:14 <diegobz> glezos, Raven46: how many out of the ~100 projects are considered as core ones?
14:10:20 <stickster> dbecker: I guess that's not too much of a loss out of >1 month, correct?
14:10:53 <Raven46> diegobz: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_GUI
14:11:04 * glezos reminds that if we start pushing projects now, they are readily available for translation right away. So we might even not lose any translation time.
14:11:17 <diegobz> glezos: but I suppose that 1 or 2 days, depending on the connection you have to clone the repos locally.
14:11:22 <dbecker> stickster: you're right. If the time left is not enough, there is always the possibility to push package updates.
14:12:06 <stickster> glezos: Simply pushing the projects into Txn right now won't be confusing to anyone, will it? In other words, if the new location is not published, it won't be confusing, and there will be a head start.
14:12:32 <diegobz> Raven46: 20 projects? glezos: Definitely 1 day is enough.
14:12:42 <Raven46> diegobz: something about that
14:12:53 <Raven46> I'm updating the list on wiki now
14:12:54 <arrbee> +1 to glezos' suggestion of starting to push the projects. We are none the worse off whether we migrate or not. We get a head start if we do move.
14:13:03 <stickster> arrbee: That makes sense to me too.
14:13:15 <glezos> yup.
14:13:19 <glezos> Note:
14:13:32 <glezos> We need to create NEW translation teams on Txn. Translation leaders should request this.
14:13:47 <glezos> There are 4 people who can approve, and we can get more volunteers to help too (arbee?).
14:14:00 * arrbee can help
14:14:15 <jsmith> OK.
14:14:16 <arrbee> glezos: however you may need to send out individual mails to all the translation leaders...
14:14:16 <glezos> #action Translation leaders to request translation team creation on http://www.transifex.net/projects/p/fedora/teams/
14:14:27 <arrbee> glezos:  perhaps on behalf of FLSCo
14:14:32 <glezos> arrbee: I can send to l10n-editor, all leaders should receive it.
14:14:43 <arrbee> glezos: ok
14:15:44 <glezos> Raven46: I'd like to add you as a maintainer of all projects on Txn, until we gradually add developers as maintainers.
14:15:56 <Raven46> glezos: that's ok
14:15:57 <jsmith> #action jsmith to setup coordination meeting with L10N representative, Infrastructure representative, FESCo representative, Docs representative, and Fedora Program Manager
14:16:06 <glezos> (to those who don't know, Raven46 has been responsible in keeping translate.fpo data up2date in the last releases)
14:16:20 <glezos> #action Glezos to create projects on Txn
14:16:31 <stickster> glezos: The action item two above needs to change to be a one-person responsibility -- who's going to inform all translation leaders what they should do?
14:16:40 <glezos> #action Progress will be reported in #fedora-l10n
14:16:50 <glezos> stickster: I will.
14:17:13 <Raven46> glezos: could the process be also reported on trans list? not everyone can be on IRV the whole day ;)
14:17:14 <stickster> Ah, so:
14:17:14 <stickster> #action glezos Inform Translation leaders to request translation team creation on http://www.transifex.net/projects/p/fedora/teams/
14:17:41 * stickster doesn't know if his #action goes into the notes, since he's not #chair
14:17:47 * glezos already did this 2 days ago, btw.
14:17:54 <stickster> Ah, no need then :-D
14:18:10 <dbecker> glezos: everything should be informed in trans list.
14:18:21 <arrbee> dbecker: +1
14:18:36 <dbecker> glezos: some people simply don't use IRC
14:19:01 <arrbee> dbecker: and we also need it for the records
14:20:22 <glezos> What else do we have?
14:20:54 <jsmith> A vote?
14:21:04 <noriko> A copy of the announcement to the other parties shoul also be informed to translators, so that we can understand what is going on.
14:22:03 <jsmith> noriko: +1
14:22:17 <stickster> jsmith: What's the vote for? Whether to move?
14:22:42 <dbecker> noriko: +1     trans list should be CC of the relevant announcements
14:22:52 <shaiton> do we already have deadlines? I mean, when upstream would be informed, when projects would be available under txn... ?
14:24:08 <jsmith> stickster: The vote is whether to move to tx.net, or to stick with Fedora hosted tx infrastructure (knowing that we're lacking in manpower to keep it up to date)
14:24:34 <stickster> jsmith: Is the input of the other teams/stakeholders needed?
14:25:05 <jsmith> stickster: The idea is to have a vote from L10N, and then in this other meeting we'll get buy-in from docs, infra, etc.
14:25:06 <glezos> stickster: I believe we have enough core stakeholders (Fedora L10n, Infra, Docs, FPL) to decide.
14:25:06 <stickster> I gotcha
14:25:17 <stickster> #halp
14:25:23 <stickster> #help
14:25:23 * rbergeron halps stickster
14:25:33 <jsmith> I'd still like input from FESCo, for example, as it impacts the packagers
14:25:34 <stickster> Darn zodbot :-)
14:25:51 <jsmith> Any other questions, before we take a vote?
14:26:25 <dbecker> shaiton: let's vote first. Then let's outline a schedule.
14:26:48 <arrbee> are we voting here and now?
14:26:53 <skvidal> umm
14:27:02 <skvidal> you're voting to determine if we have the people to support it?
14:27:13 * diegobz is confused
14:27:13 <skvidal> I can assure that no matter how the vote turns out, we don't have the people
14:27:24 <skvidal> and that you can vote until you are blue in the face
14:27:26 <skvidal> you're going to lose
14:28:10 <dbecker> skvidal: I don't understand
14:28:32 <stickster> skvidal: I think the vote is on, "Does L10n support migrating translations away from translate.fp.o to Transifex.net"
14:28:44 <skvidal> stickster: okay - but lemme put it this way
14:28:50 <skvidal> does FI give a crap if L10n supports it?
14:28:51 <stickster> skvidal: And FYI/AFAICT, the +1's have it... in other words, supporting what Infra was talking about at FUDCon.
14:30:06 <jsmith> skvidal: This is the vote for L10N... I'll be sure to get a final +1/-1 from Infra (and Docs, and FESCo, etc.) in the next meeting, but I've been told by multiple people that Infra is +1 on this
14:30:21 <skvidal> jsmith: I'm saying
14:30:33 <skvidal> it's a fait accompli, I think
14:31:17 <skvidal> we should not encourage voting against things which cannot be changed w/o the infusion of capital/human power
14:31:21 <arrbee> skvidal: I guess we are voting on more things than just a yes/no to moving to tx.net. Things like whether we are agreeable to bring it back to Fedora Infra again.
14:31:30 <jsmith> skvidal: I'm open to suggestions on other ways to handle this.
14:31:35 <arrbee> bringing*
14:31:36 <skvidal> jsmith: okay
14:31:37 * stickster agrees this is a formality. The most important part of this meeting is figuring out how to get people working on communicating to other teams what needs to happen next.
14:31:43 <skvidal> you say
14:31:47 <skvidal> we're moving tx to tx.net
14:31:49 <skvidal> that's it
14:31:54 <skvidal> you can discuss it
14:32:01 <skvidal> but that won't change the facts
14:32:13 <skvidal> FI has a lack of human power and NO ONE in FI wants to maintain tx
14:32:27 <jsmith> skvidal: Are you saying that if L10N decided that they were against moving to tx.net, Infra would shut down our hosted tx instance anyway?
14:32:50 <skvidal> jsmith: you wanna test this? you wanna find out what happens if a body votes on something that it cannot provide with existing resources?
14:32:53 <skvidal> here's what would happen
14:32:57 <skvidal> you'd talk to tim
14:33:00 <skvidal> tim would talk to spot
14:33:08 <skvidal> spot would tell me, smooge and toshio to keep it running
14:33:09 <skvidal> we would try
14:33:16 <skvidal> it would break and or fuck up something else
14:33:19 <skvidal> and shit would hit the fan
14:33:27 <skvidal> and everyone would be abashed and embarassed
14:33:35 <spot> well, to be fair, i think it would be more nuanced than that
14:33:46 <spot> but i don't disagree
14:33:58 <skvidal> FI was trying to do the responsible thing by migrating away the services
14:33:59 <skvidal> that can be migrated away
14:34:07 <stickster> skvidal: jsmith: I think the way forward here is not to vote on this, but to get working on bringing Docs, devel, program manager together to figure out how, as opposed to whether.
14:34:14 <jsmith> I 100% agree that we're lacking in manpower to maintain our own tx instance over the long term
14:34:28 <jsmith> But I still think it's important to let L10N let their voice be heard through a vote
14:34:45 <jsmith> Their vote doesn't change the infra situation
14:35:01 <dbecker> jsmith: +1
14:35:04 <skvidal> jsmith: okay - it just feels like congress voting for 'more oil'
14:35:08 <jsmith> but a vote of "no moving to tx.net" might encourage others to step up and help out
14:35:22 <skvidal> jsmith: I'll give you dollars for donuts that the above is not true
14:35:26 <spot> skvidal: it would be at least useful to have their concerns on the record, and that is one sure way to do it
14:35:35 <skvidal> fair enough
14:35:38 <spot> (if there are any concerns)
14:35:52 <stickster> spot: skvidal: I think this is academic... AFAICT no one in this meeting is arguing against the move. Which makes the vote kind of a formality.
14:36:08 <stickster> Can we move forward please and stop looking for places to argue?
14:36:23 * spot goes back into lurk mode
14:36:29 * skvidal does as well
14:36:35 <jsmith> OK, I'm calling for a vote (from L10N) on whether or not they support the move to tx.net
14:37:42 <jsmith> Of the L10N people who are here now, who is in support of moving to tx.net, and who is against it?
14:38:01 <dbecker> +1 for the move
14:38:05 <glezos> +1 for the move
14:38:08 <shaiton> +1 to have a working workflow. moving to txn seems to be the solution
14:38:25 * shaiton has to leave. thanks guys
14:38:31 <diegobz> +1 for the move
14:38:35 <jsmith> Thanks for your input shaiton
14:38:37 <arrbee> +1 for the move, but have an exit plan in place as well
14:38:37 <Raven46> +1 for the move (but for the record, I don't think it would end well for translations)
14:39:07 <_logan_> +1 for the move
14:39:40 <noriko> +1 but exit plan and confirmation from developers
14:40:07 <stickster> jsmith: Seems unanimous, as expected.
14:40:28 <jsmith> OK, looks like we can proceed ahead then
14:40:49 <jsmith> I'll get together with Docs representative, FESCo representative, etc. to coordinate
14:40:59 <jsmith> Who is going to be the L10N representative in that meeting?
14:41:19 <glezos> jsmith: I can participate and answer any questions.
14:41:35 <glezos> Raven46: would you like to participate too?
14:41:57 * glezos thinks Raven46 is a key person, since he's basically maintaining the L10n configuration for our releases.
14:42:16 <jsmith> I think that sounds fair... as long as Raven46 is OK with it
14:42:23 <dbecker> +1 for glezos as l10n representative
14:42:32 <Raven46> glezos: I don't think I can, my schedule is pretty full
14:42:43 <stickster> arrbee: Are you interested?
14:42:52 <glezos> Raven46: okey, I'll communicate with you afterwards the issues/concerns.
14:42:54 <stickster> Or noriko?
14:42:56 <_logan_> I'd rather be represented by someone less involved in tx ... as noriko, runa or shaiton.
14:43:12 <Raven46> although I would like to, and I'm definitely going to help with maintaining :)
14:43:31 <stickster> _logan_: +1, also noriko or arrbee brings the perspective of downstream as well... helps us debug the process.
14:43:53 * arrbee votes for noriko
14:44:06 <dbecker> +1 for noriko -san
14:44:06 <noriko> ok, will do it :-)
14:44:14 <arrbee> Thanks noriko :)
14:44:28 <_logan_> thanks noriko :-D
14:44:46 <stickster> jsmith: Note that noriko is on an APAC timezone so the meetings need to be timed appropriately
14:44:51 <stickster> Not easy, but not impossible either
14:45:14 <jsmith> I understand.
14:45:45 <jsmith> I'll work with noriko, glezos, zoglesby, rbergeron, FESCo, and Infra to find a time over the next couple of days
14:45:53 <glezos> jsmith: thanks.
14:46:33 <jsmith> glezos, noriko, zoglesby, rbergeron: Does this same time tomorrow or the day after work for you?
14:47:00 <jsmith> spot, skvidal: Who from Infra should I invite to said meeting?
14:47:05 <zoglesby> jsmith: tomorrow, yes the next day no
14:47:12 <skvidal> smooge toshio and me
14:47:17 <jsmith> skvidal: OK.
14:47:24 <Raven46> if it's the day after, then I could go
14:47:27 <rbergeron> jsmith: yes.
14:47:33 <glezos> jsmith: works for me.
14:47:34 <Raven46> oh, nvm
14:47:37 <rbergeron> I have a hard stop at the end of the hour though
14:47:40 <jsmith> rbergeron: (Sorry, I know it's early)
14:48:02 <rbergeron> jsmith: it's all good. i'll try to be fully 'ined by that point. :)
14:49:47 <noriko> jsmith: not ideal time, it started 2300 here, and now 0047.... but it is not impossible :-)
14:50:05 <glezos> noriko: Tried hard to find a compromise, I think this is the only time we can all meet.
14:50:32 <noriko> glezos: sure, I will be this time.
14:51:54 <stickster> jsmith: glezos: OK, anything else that needs to be covered here? We're at 1:50 into this meeting, guys. :-)
14:52:30 * jsmith is happy
14:52:44 <glezos> uhm
14:52:46 <glezos> I think I'm fine
14:52:47 <Raven46> I have an idea, could we create something like 'provenpackagers', but for experienced translators?
14:52:58 <Raven46> it would allow experienced translators to directly commit translations and also fix some common l10n issues (outdated POTFILES.in etc.)
14:53:00 <glezos> Just to report that I already started the migration. 6/20: http://www.transifex.net/projects/p/fedora/r/fedora-15/
14:53:02 <stickster> Raven46: If that doesn't need to be covered here, I suggest bringing that to the list.
14:53:09 <Raven46> stickster: ok, sure
14:53:14 <jsmith> Raven46: I think it's a great idea, but should be discussed on-list
14:53:15 <stickster> Raven46: There are participants in the meeting who need to get *some* sleep :-)
14:53:22 <jsmith> Ah... stickster beat me to the punch again
14:53:50 <stickster> glezos: I think you have #chair, sir, so closing falls to you ;-)
14:54:14 <jsmith> Thanks everyone for your participation and input!
14:54:26 <jsmith> (Especially those who stayed up late or got up early to help!)
14:54:37 <glezos> #endmeeting