fedora_l10n_coordination
LOGS
13:00:50 <jsmith> #startmeeting Fedora Translation Coordinatoin Meeting
13:00:50 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Feb 16 13:00:50 2011 UTC.  The chair is jsmith. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:00:50 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
13:01:03 <jsmith> #meetingname Fedora L10N coordination
13:01:03 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_l10n_coordination'
13:01:16 <jsmith> #topic Roll Call
13:01:27 * noriko here
13:01:30 * zoglesby here
13:01:34 <jsmith> OK, so far we have myself, zoglesby, glezos, and notting
13:02:01 * MostafaDaneshvar MostafaDaneshvar is here .fa and Bal team
13:02:12 <jsmith> I invited skvidal and smooge and abadger1999 from Infrastructure, but abadger1999 said he couldn't make it
13:02:41 <smooge> here
13:02:43 <smooge> sorry
13:03:25 <jsmith> Welcome smooge :-)
13:03:39 <jsmith> OK, let's go ahead and get started!
13:03:50 <jsmith> #topic Planning
13:03:57 <jsmith> Just to recap yesterday's meeting:
13:04:35 <jsmith> We had a meeting at this time yesterday, and the L10N team voted to move forward with the plans to transition from a hosted instance of Transifex to Transifex.net
13:04:56 <jsmith> There are several reasons for the transition
13:05:13 <jsmith> 1) Our hosted instance was several versions behind
13:05:24 <jsmith> 2) Infrastructure lacks the manpower to keep up with changes
13:05:42 * skvidal is here
13:05:46 <skvidal> sorryt for running late
13:06:18 <jsmith> For me, the most important factor is having a solid platform that works well for our L10N team
13:06:52 <jsmith> In yesterday's meeting, it was pretty clear that folks wanted something better than what we currently have, but are understandably nervous about the migration to transifex.net
13:07:18 <smooge> !
13:07:29 <jsmith> So in this meeting, I want to put together a coordinated plan for making sure we're doing things in the right way
13:07:32 <jsmith> => smooge
13:08:24 <smooge> I just wanted to say that it is more about 'dedicated' manpower. We have a lot of good volunteers but the tx software requires a lot of hours to deal with properly and have people who are able to know it.
13:08:43 <notting> !
13:08:43 <smooge> eof
13:08:45 <rbergeron> good morning
13:08:49 <jsmith> => notting
13:08:55 * rbergeron apologizes for just rolling out of bed :(
13:08:55 <skvidal> are we really doing the ! => thing?
13:09:01 <skvidal> can't we just talk?
13:09:05 <jsmith> skvidal: Yes, please -- yesterday's meeting got hard to follow
13:09:13 <glezos> The development pace is quite fast, one major release every 2 months or so.
13:09:40 <notting> my concern is what the changes would be for workflow (for both translators and developers) - i've heard rumors that this would be a fairly significant change on the devleoper side.
13:09:56 <jsmith> notting: Yes, that's a valid concern, which is why I invited folks to the meeting today to discuss
13:09:59 <notting> can someone familiar with transifex.net elaborate what the workflow would become?
13:10:03 <notting> <eof>
13:10:27 <jsmith> Before we dive into too many details, I'd like to lay out the three-pronged plan we came up with yesterday
13:10:40 <jsmith> Step 1 is to plan the migration itself
13:11:01 <jsmith> Step 2 is to package up the client-side tools, along with documentation for the workflow, etc.
13:11:19 <jsmith> Step 3 is to decide how this affects the schedule, and when we want to make this happen
13:11:32 <jsmith> Does that make sense?
13:12:16 <jsmith> I want to make sure that whatever we do, we do it in a coordinated way
13:12:20 <jsmith> with plenty of communication
13:12:46 <jsmith> and make sure we're taking a holistic approach to this -- not just looking at the L10N team or the Infrastructure team, but at everyone involved
13:12:54 <jsmith> (including our downstreams)
13:13:17 <jsmith> Make sense?
13:13:28 <glezos> +1
13:13:34 <rbergeron> yes
13:13:59 <notting> aye
13:14:06 <noriko> yes
13:14:13 * skvidal shrugs
13:14:20 <zoglesby> yep
13:15:02 <jsmith> OK, let's dive into the three steps then, and put together a plan, and then see if we can all agree on said plan
13:15:27 <jsmith> Since notting brought up the client side of things, let's start with step 2
13:15:39 <jsmith> glezos, can you give us a bit more detail on the client tools and workflow side of things?
13:15:43 <glezos> yup
13:15:44 <glezos> The migration involves two changes: 1. the move to a new domain and 2. the fact that we're moving from 0.7.4 to 1.1-devel version (which would happen at some point even if we stayed on fpo). The first largly only affects translators. The latter largly only affects developers.
13:15:44 <glezos> For 1., we'll create translation teams on transifex.net. Translation leaders need to create teams and add their translators.
13:15:44 <glezos> For 2., developers will now use a command-line tool (transifex-client) to export translation files from Transifex, instead of seeing git commits. This can be integrated into Makefile rules for automation.
13:16:24 <glezos> 1. needs to be 100% ready by string freeze. 2. needs to be 100% ready by translation deadline.
13:16:49 <glezos> string freeze was yesterday, but we can take the next couple of days to set things up. Tr Deadline is in 1 month.
13:16:55 <jsmith> And we're already past string freeze (at least according to the schedule), so we need to take that into account
13:17:49 <notting> glezos: there's a command to export translations from tfx - does it still automatically import?
13:18:10 <glezos> The workflow: Developer commits his POT file in his repo. Transifex watches an HTTP link to that POT file and auto-updates its english strings regularly. Translators work inside Transifex, without git commits being issued. Before pushing to koji, the packager runs 'tx pull' (either manually or with Makefile rule) to refresh his translation files.
13:18:11 <glezos> Translation files do not need to live in the git repo any more.
13:18:29 <glezos> notting: yes. Using the HTTP link above (we call it auto-fetch).
13:18:47 <glezos> All info about the upgrade and the workflow changes can be found here: http://help.transifex.net/user-guide/one-dot-zero.html
13:19:09 <glezos> notting: Developer can also manually use
13:19:22 <jsmith> Another thing to point out was that FAS integration is *not* being considered at this time, from what I understand.  Translators will need to create an account on transifex.net, if they don't already have one
13:19:30 <glezos> notting: Developer can also manually use 'tx push' to push source language files (en.pot) whenever he wants (e.g. with make dist)
13:20:15 * glezos reminds that the above are mostly related with the 0.7→1.0, rather than fpo→txn
13:21:15 <jsmith> Correct
13:21:52 <jsmith> And, in all honest, I've heard from a couple of people that there might be folks willing to step up and help upgrade our existing instance
13:22:19 <jsmith> But we'd go through much of this same pain if we stayed on a self-hosted instance
13:22:45 <smooge> !
13:22:50 <jsmith> => smooge
13:22:58 <rbergeron> ??
13:23:19 <skvidal> upgrading ourexisting instance isn't enough
13:23:22 <skvidal> it's
13:23:23 <smooge> The issue is we have had people volunteer before, but they aren't all for sticking around
13:23:47 <jsmith> smooge: Absolutely... Software isn't something you just deploy once and then walk away.  It's more like a living breathing animal that has to be cared for.
13:24:07 <jsmith> smooge: I think we all share your concern about long-term sustainability of a self-hosted instance
13:24:19 <jsmith> => rbergeron
13:24:20 <smooge> Currently our infrastructure has too much deploy once, go away.
13:24:21 <rbergeron> How drastically does this differ from current workflow, and what is the fallout for an individual developer if, say, they aren't paying attention and don't realize that there are new methods?  Are things going to Break Horribly?
13:24:22 <smooge> eof
13:24:40 * glezos notes that some other large FOSS projects chose the same path, including MeeGo, Django, Mercurial, LXDE and Freedesktop.org.
13:24:42 <rbergeron> And pardon my ignorance for not knowing the nuances of everything :) sorry!
13:24:55 <skvidal> rbergeron: they just won't be able to pull new translations until they get tx-client integrated
13:25:07 <skvidal> rbergeron: into their make process
13:25:30 <rbergeron> skvidal: but make won't be screaming at them with errors in the interim
13:25:40 <skvidal> mine doesn't for yum
13:25:44 <skvidal> and I use upstream tx.net
13:25:44 <zoglesby> how quickly can that be packged and added to the repos?
13:26:05 <glezos> zoglesby: It's a simple Python CLI, should be easy-peasy for anyone who has done anything similar in the past.
13:26:10 <jsmith> zoglesby: Yesterday dbecker volunteered to get it packaged ASAP
13:26:25 <jsmith> zoglesby: I'm sure we have plenty of people willing to help him get it packaged
13:26:25 <yshao> sorry to jump in late and if the question was asked before, i am wondering the difference between people to maintain tx.net and tx.f.o?
13:26:42 <jsmith> My bigger concern is that of documenting and communicating the changes
13:26:44 <skvidal> yshao: 1. fas integration
13:27:00 <skvidal> yshao: 2. tx.net has a company devoted to doing just this
13:27:14 <skvidal> yshao: 3. tx.net works on this code all the time - fp.o does not
13:27:54 <glezos> weekly updates
13:28:23 * marionline is away: Per ora assente
13:29:00 <notting> is there any particular time pressure that requires a switch before F15?
13:29:31 <jsmith> notting: In yesterday's meeting, the L10N folks said they'd rather do it before the F15 release, as the existing instance isn't working well for them
13:29:53 * stickster is here a bit late, trying to cram in a bunch of writing.
13:30:15 <yshao> skvidal, further info on 3, why is it?
13:30:19 <stickster> jsmith: More than that methinks... the Infra folks said they need to do it as well
13:30:29 <skvidal> yshao: it's their job?
13:30:32 <skvidal> yshao: it's their company
13:30:44 <skvidal> yshao: no one in FI works on django really at all
13:30:55 <skvidal> yshao: none of us have the time to devote to it really AT ALL
13:31:35 <yshao> ok, seems overall still a man power issue to me
13:31:41 <skvidal> yes
13:31:46 <skvidal> and volunteers don't solve that
13:32:09 <jsmith> OK, so we're getting off-track a bit here
13:32:12 <glezos> There is one more big reason for the move: the fact that we're moving our translations and community closer to upstream projects.
13:32:19 <stickster> yshao: Note that Transifex itself is not inherently hard to maintain. The difference is that tx.n is the upstream and inherits fixes and enhancements far faster than an internally hosted instance can.
13:32:29 <jsmith> We were discussing step 2 above
13:32:59 <jsmith> Looks like we have a plan for the packaging -- what we're missing is a more detailed plan for the documentation and communication of the client-side (developer) changes
13:33:02 <yshao> stickster, ok
13:33:41 <jsmith> Yesterday, glezos agreed to take up the documentation side of this.
13:34:11 <glezos> jsmith: Indeed. We prepared a lot of docs for both the upgrade, as well as the client, in the following pages:
13:34:12 <glezos> http://help.transifex.net/user-guide/one-dot-zero.html
13:34:13 <jsmith> As I mentioned yesterday, it's more than just documenting the client-side tool.  It's communicating the reasons for the change, how to use the tool, and how the workflow is now different with tx 1.0
13:34:23 <glezos> http://help.transifex.net/user-guide/client/client-0.4.html#for-developers
13:34:39 <glezos> I think we should create a wiki page explaining some of the benefits, and our migration plan.
13:34:51 <jsmith> Yes, I read both of those yesterday.  A Fedora-specific wiki page would certainly help as well
13:35:10 <notting> we're going to want to directly contact maintainers on fedorahosted
13:35:22 <jsmith> Absolutely
13:36:06 <glezos> notting: through devel-announce or though tickets?
13:36:09 <jsmith> We (or at least I) need to also contact our downstreams (most notably, Red Hat) and work with them as well
13:36:23 <skvidal> glezos: we have email addresses b/c they have actual user accounts
13:36:23 <zoglesby> this may be a docs only issue, but becuase the site is no longer fedora only, do we need to come up with a project naming scheme?
13:36:25 <notting> glezos: i was thinking direct mail
13:36:30 <jsmith> As this change impacts them as well
13:36:33 <notting> (devel-announce as well)
13:36:52 <glezos> zoglesby: If a project is fedora-specific, yes. Otherwise, no. For example, anaconda should be named anaconda.
13:36:56 <glezos> We have already started the migration to see how it will look like. http://fedora.transifex.net/  & http://fedora.transifex.net/projects/p/fedora/r/fedora-15/
13:38:11 <glezos> alright.
13:38:14 * stickster encourages people to use #idea and #info here to ensure information gets bubbled up into the minutes for this meeting for people not able to attend.
13:38:28 <jsmith> #info We have already started the migration to see how it will look like. http://fedora.transifex.net/  & http://fedora.transifex.net/projects/p/fedora/r/fedora-15/
13:38:57 <jsmith> #chair glezos stickster noriko notting skvidal zoglesby
13:38:57 <zodbot> Current chairs: glezos jsmith noriko notting skvidal stickster zoglesby
13:39:11 <jsmith> OK, let's move on to step number 1
13:39:14 <glezos> for now we (I) will migrate all Fedora projects. But eventually, each developer should maintain his own project (ie. add translatable resources etc)
13:40:15 <jsmith> In yesterday's meeting, it looks like it's only going to take a day (or maybe two) to migrate all the projects from translate.fp.o to tx.net
13:40:25 <jsmith> Again, the harder part is going to be the communication
13:40:41 <skvidal> and again
13:40:45 <skvidal> the WORST CASE
13:40:51 <skvidal> is that projects don't get new translations
13:40:58 <skvidal> the projects don't break
13:41:02 <skvidal> the projects don't fall apart
13:41:08 <jsmith> Correct
13:41:09 <skvidal> they just don't get new translations
13:41:11 <stickster> skvidal: And that particular problem can be solved (except in the case of e.g. Anaconda) by updates
13:41:50 <skvidal> thus my point - this is not a huge impact in the event a project doesn't migrate right away
13:42:09 <rbergeron> jsmith: that "day" doesn't include notification time and so forth, correct?
13:42:26 <rbergeron> jsmith: is the plan to have at least a short window of time between notification and moving?
13:42:31 <rbergeron> Or just to move?
13:42:34 <jsmith> rbergeron: No, that's just the actual work of migrating the projects
13:42:49 <jsmith> rbergeron: The migration can actually happen early -- in fact, it's already started
13:43:10 <glezos> Migrating the projects is very easy. I explained it here: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/trans/2011-January/008573.html -- It will take a few hours to do them, and translators can start working right away.
13:44:25 <jsmith> Again, my biggest concern is communicating the change in such a way that we don't lose any of our fantastic L10N team
13:45:03 <jsmith> (and making sure they have the time they need to complete their translations)
13:46:29 <glezos> jsmith: Do you have an action plan in mind?
13:46:42 <jsmith> glezos: Well, there's obviously several parts to it
13:47:07 <jsmith> glezos: At the most basic level, showing the L10N team how to use the new system, and providing mentorship if they have questions/problems
13:47:50 <jsmith> glezos: But beyond that, it may be worthwhile to watch translate.fp.o, to see if people are still using the old system for some reason, and if so, help guide them over to the new system
13:48:15 <glezos> jsmith: We'll need to flip the switch -- we shouldn't allow people to translate in both, otherwise we'll have issues with merging files later.
13:48:20 * rbergeron nods
13:48:51 <jsmith> glezos: I agree -- but when we do flip the switch, the old system could redirect to a wiki page or something explaining the change
13:49:14 <jsmith> glezos: Will all the statistics, etc. be available on the new system from the beginning?  Is there any legacy data people might still want access to?
13:49:42 <notting> are there any project types supported by the fedora instance that can' t be handled by tx.net?
13:50:07 <stickster> notting: glezos has more details, but I think it's somewhat the opposite
13:51:05 <stickster> notting: Our main problem is not being able to inherit those enhancements fast enough to keep our L10n community as happy and efficient as possible
13:51:09 <glezos> notting: Not really, the contrary, we now support many more file types (about to code support for .desktop files).
13:51:29 <glezos> notting: intltool projects require a small change: To have a POT file committed in the repo (or a manual use of 'tx push' with make)
13:51:40 <_logan_> !
13:51:56 <glezos> notting: until then, since we're in string freeze, pushing the file once _should_ work. :)
13:52:13 <jsmith> => _logan_
13:52:34 <_logan_> tI think that translators do not have to be your biggest concern... there is not much difference between one and another platform, from our point of view.
13:52:56 <_logan_> the ones who need to be more attentive, and agree with this transition are the package maintainers.
13:53:02 <jsmith> The one big change I see is the lack of FAS integration
13:53:19 <_logan_> yes, and that too
13:53:23 <jsmith> Right... the bigger change is really on the developer side (as we discussed in Step 2 above)
13:53:28 <_logan_> <eof>
13:53:39 <jsmith> OK, any other concerns on Step 1?
13:53:41 <noriko> +1 to _logan_
13:54:06 <stickster> jsmith: glezos: This is somewhat related to the FAS integration issue, but should probably be discussed elsewhere... I wonder if OpenID would help mitigate. We don't need to debate it here, though
13:54:07 <jsmith> Do we have a volunteer to help document and communicate the changes for the L10N team?
13:54:37 <jsmith> stickster: I'm sure the Infra folks have that in mind on various levels, but we can discuss that with them offline
13:54:49 <stickster> jsmith: +1
13:55:06 <jsmith> We don't need to fall into the "tool trap" in this meeting :-)
13:55:19 <glezos> jsmith: I can send an email the language leaders to create teams, and one to the whole team about the decision.
13:55:28 <jsmith> OK...
13:55:45 <glezos> jsmith: I'll need to tell them "start translating <then>", and that's when we'll push fresh files to Tx and disable submissions to translate.fpo
13:55:46 <jsmith> I'm happy to send the email, if you'll help me with the technical details (to make sure I get them all right)
13:56:19 <glezos> jsmith: Let's talk together, I can help prepare the info you'll need.
13:56:28 <jsmith> Sounds like a plan
13:56:32 <jsmith> Anything else on Step 1?
13:57:01 <jsmith> OK... moving on to Step 3 then.
13:57:09 <jsmith> This is with regards to schedule and coordination
13:57:58 <jsmith> We need to coordinate the migration (step 1), with the client tools available (step 2), and fit that with the general Fedora schedule (rbergeron)
13:58:15 <jsmith> Technically, we're a day past the string freeze
13:58:37 <jsmith> Does everyone agree that this still makes sense to do now, rather than after the F15 release?
13:58:43 <rbergeron> yes
13:58:52 <glezos> yes, the risks are very small IMHO.
13:58:57 <jsmith> And if so, let's put a realistic schedule in place
13:59:05 <zoglesby> jsmith: I think thats very important, it will look rushed if we tell everyone to move to tx.net but that we don't have the tools in the repo for them to use
13:59:54 <jsmith> zoglesby: Correct.   At the same time, the longer this takes, the shorter time the L10N team has.
14:00:18 <jsmith> (and frankly, I've seen the L10N get the short end of the stick many times, and feel for them when it happens)
14:00:19 <notting> i'd agree we *can* do it now, but waiting until after F15 also makes sense to me
14:00:39 <zoglesby> that's why packaging the tool should be a HOT topic
14:01:06 <jsmith> notting: That was my original feeling too, but the L10N team convinced me that almost anything would be better than the current situation.
14:01:24 <notting> jsmith: yes, i'm speaking just from a developer side
14:01:26 <rbergeron> I know the schedule already has us in software translation period - are people currently doing that? Or are they holding off in anticipation of changes?
14:02:29 <rbergeron> #link http://rbergero.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-15/f-15-trans-tasks.html
14:02:37 <glezos> rbergeron: I'm not sure, but in any case we can simply disable submissions on translate.fpo for a couple of days.
14:02:55 <glezos> It seems that some people are working on some projects.
14:02:56 <jsmith> notting: Yeah, from the developer side, we sure aren't giving folks much advanced warning...
14:03:20 <smooge> !
14:03:41 <jsmith> => smooge
14:03:53 <smooge> ok from infrastructure temp lead point
14:04:30 <smooge> I will keep the old transifex going until after F15 if it is deemed it has to be done. It won't be pretty and it won't be nice..
14:04:49 <smooge> we will not be upgrading it
14:05:15 <stickster> smooge: Yes, it makes no sense to be working on upgrading translate.fp.o at this point.
14:05:17 <glezos> smooge: We'll have to disable submissions on it at some point. jsmith, would you like us to decide a date this should happen?
14:05:36 * stickster would like to see more people, tasks, and specific dates being attached to outputs here.
14:05:45 <jsmith> glezos: Absolutely
14:05:50 * rbergeron is curious as to how much of a delay we think this may have - and if it can be made up by the software translation deadline (3/15)
14:05:54 <smooge> glezos, I realize that. however, we need developments buy-in on this. If development can't make the transition then its a no-go
14:06:12 <jsmith> glezos: I just don't have a good feeling on when that day thould be -- two days from now? a week from now?
14:06:13 <notting> i'll bring it up at fesco today
14:06:21 <smooge> notting, I am sorry you were brought in so late. I let events get away from me.
14:06:35 <jsmith> notting: Thanks :-)
14:06:52 <rbergeron> notting: ... and I guess everyone else.... do you want to send your concerns back to either this gropu of people? or perhaps logistics list would be best?
14:07:14 <glezos> I'll push all Fedora-core projects to Txn in the next 4h.
14:07:25 <jsmith> Right -- I think if there's one lesson we can all take away from this process, it's that decisions were made before everyone involved was brought in
14:07:28 <glezos> I will also email language leaders to create teams and start translating on Transifex.net.
14:07:32 <jsmith> Hence the reason I called this meeting :-)
14:07:34 <glezos> This way L10n won't be a blocker.
14:08:19 <jsmith> glezos: Thanks :-)
14:08:45 <notting> glezos: need to close off fedora tx when we are live on tx.net, i'd think - don't want to give the idea two places are live at once
14:09:28 <jsmith> And the documentation and communication needs to happen *before* we close off Fedora TX -- again, we don't want to surprise people
14:09:28 <rbergeron> how much notice are we going to give all interested parties?
14:09:33 <glezos> notting: but when?
14:09:40 <smooge> glezos, one sec.
14:09:42 <rbergeron> or how much time will documentation and communication take?
14:10:02 <jsmith> rbergeron: The documentation won't take long -- it's mostly there already.  Just needs some Fedora-specific info added.
14:10:22 <rbergeron> communication being: we sent it, and we expect that by X number of days, people should have read it, before we flip that switch.
14:10:31 <notting> need the tools packaged for whatever releases the developer may be developing on. that would be f15, f14, el6 i think at a minimum. maybe el5?
14:10:46 <_logan_> glezos, if you pull now the core projects, perhaps you'll like to advice translators to not submit translations anymore tho those projects. At least not into t.fp.o.
14:11:13 * glezos notes that the Translator's part should be ready soon. The Developer's part will become effective, say, 2 weeks from now. That's when everything should be ready.
14:11:49 <stickster> notting: Fortunately the requirements for the tx client tools are very low... core Python maybe?
14:12:00 <glezos> Q to all: Should we then have two dates in place? One when we'll disable submissions to translate.fpo and one when all developer-side parts of the process should be ready?
14:12:21 <jsmith> glezos: Yes, I think two dates make the most sense.
14:12:32 <jsmith> glezos: The first date can be fairly soon (next few days)
14:13:26 <notting> apologies, i'm going to need to leave soon
14:13:32 <rbergeron> how does the 2-week period affect what's currently happening on the schedule over the next 2 weeks for the translation team?
14:13:35 * stickster as well, 10am meeting to prep for
14:13:57 * rbergeron is looking at steps 10, 11, and again, apologizes for not knowing everything going on in that team
14:14:54 * glezos didn't understand the Q, TBH.
14:15:28 <jsmith> rbergeron: The translators can continue to do their work once step 1 is complete, whether or not Step 2 is complete yet
14:15:58 <jsmith> rbergeron: Just as long as the developers know to manually pull the translations (after step 2 has been completed)
14:16:51 <notting> sorry, have to drop now.
14:16:56 <jsmith> notting: Thanks for your time and input
14:17:12 * rbergeron is just trying to ascertain whether or not this impacts anything that is currently on the schedule, is all. If there are other tasks that *other* teams are needing to do that depend on certain things being done.
14:17:21 <jsmith> rbergeron: Not that I know of.
14:18:05 * marionline is back.
14:18:22 <jsmith> What if we set the first date as this coming Friday (February 18th).
14:18:33 <jsmith> And the second date a week later?
14:18:43 <glezos> jsmith: seems sane to me.
14:19:20 <jsmith> Any objections?
14:20:56 <rbergeron> none here.
14:22:22 <jsmith> OK, sounds like a plan.
14:22:33 <jsmith> Any other concerns?
14:22:54 <smooge> none.
14:22:58 <rbergeron> Will logistics and such and communication be happening on logistics list?
14:23:03 <rbergeron> Or elsewhere?
14:23:36 <jsmith> Yes, I think that makes the most sense
14:23:54 <noriko> I do not wish to disturb the plan at all, but
14:24:10 <noriko> just would like to know the possilibility
14:25:19 <noriko> if a dedicated resource can be obtained to keep fedora tx for f15?
14:26:17 <skvidal> no
14:28:46 <jsmith> OK, anything else before we close the meeting?
14:29:07 <rbergeron> jsmith: can we action folks on the things we mentioned above?
14:29:19 <rbergeron> re: dates and such
14:29:30 <rbergeron> Just so it's in the meeting minutes and people don't have to hunt
14:29:37 <jsmith> rbergeron: Good call!
14:29:40 * rbergeron isn't a chair so
14:29:46 <jsmith> #chair rbergeron
14:29:46 <zodbot> Current chairs: glezos jsmith noriko notting rbergeron skvidal stickster zoglesby
14:29:53 * jsmith fixes that!
14:29:54 * stickster looking for the #actions?
14:30:28 <jsmith> #action jsmith and glezos to coordinate the email to the translators
14:30:39 <jsmith> #action glezos to lead the documentation effort
14:30:44 <rbergeron> stickster: I harassed first :) lol
14:31:17 <rbergeron> jsmith: dates?
14:31:19 <rbergeron> or are you still typing
14:31:45 <jsmith> #action notting to talk to FESCo regarding developer side of things
14:31:50 * jsmith is a slow typist
14:31:53 <rbergeron> ah
14:32:01 * rbergeron was born with a keyboard in her hands, i think
14:32:25 <jsmith> #agreed February 18th deadline for migration, switching off of translate.fp.o
14:32:56 <jsmith> #agreed February 25th deadline for packaging of client side tools and developer-facing items
14:33:50 <rbergeron> And you and glezos are emailing imminently, correct?
14:33:59 <jsmith> rbergeron: Absolutely :-)
14:34:14 <jsmith> #action glezos to finish migration of projects over the next few hours
14:36:30 <jsmith> Did I miss anything?
14:36:37 <zoglesby> I have a question
14:36:38 * rbergeron isn't trying to babysit, she promises... can we send these notes out to logistics@ and maybe have a high-level bulletpoint schedule at the top? :)
14:36:49 <jsmith> zoglesby: From the Docs standpoint, is there anything you're missing?
14:36:52 <rbergeron> just so we're sure people aren't missing things
14:36:54 <jsmith> => zoglesby
14:37:15 <jsmith> rbergeron: Yes, I'll send notes to logistics and the translation list
14:37:51 <rbergeron> woot. okay, that's all i have. ;)
14:37:52 <zoglesby> nevermind
14:38:23 <zoglesby> but no, I don't think we are missing anything, our deadlines are a little farther out so its not as hard on us
14:38:37 <zoglesby> we have till March 15th to make the first POT files for 15
14:38:40 * rbergeron nods
14:39:17 <jsmith> Any other concerns?
14:39:19 <jsmith> Questions?
14:39:20 <jsmith> Comments?
14:40:27 <rbergeron> I'm hungry.
14:40:38 <jsmith> rbergeron: Time for a second breakfast!
14:40:46 <jsmith> Thanks everyone for your time and input.
14:40:51 <jsmith> I appreciate it!
14:40:54 <jsmith> #endmeeting