On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 5:28 PM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > On 9 March 2013 21:57, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: > >> janI wrote: >> >>> that is perfectly within the ruleset. >>> >> >> Perfect. >> >> >> I thought the reason for local users was >>> - get their work named or >>> - allow them to do review (not possible on suggestions) or >>> - save committers work >>> as you suggest I cannot see the difference to using anonymous as we have >>> it >>> today ? What did I miss ? >>> >> >> Well, the first item is very important. The step from anonymous >> contributors to authenticated contributors is a big one: it enables >> traceability, accountability and accommodates licensing concerns; it allows >> to evaluate contributions from individual authors. The other improvements >> are very good, but I see the first one as the key. > > > making support for non-ldap users is no trivial task (just think of spam >> protection) so clearly this effort should counter weighted of other >> advantages. >> > > Manual creation/activation of accounts would be fine too: it would still be >> a significant improvement over what we are doing now. > > > The reference to "accommodates licensing concerns" actually calls for > another change in the setup, somewhere in the login screen, the user must > be made aware of or see the ASF license and not standard. I hope we can > configure it in 2.5. >
We currently accept patches from non-committers to the mailing list and to Bugzilla without any special license display. But having the contributor's contact information helps since if questions arise we can follow up with them. Anything short of an ICLA requires review by a committer to make it into the product. The reviewer should raise any technical concerns, and licensing ones as well. For example, if we suddenly get a substantial contribution, code or translation, from someone never associated with the project before, then the reviewer might clarify the situation with the contributor. That's why the current setup is non-optimal -- we don't know who the contributor is. Regards, -Rob > I do not share the opinion that we need to rush on this subject, most > translations are done offline so if we as an example spent the same time > improving download/upload it would be much more useful for translators (and > volunteers who prepare .po files). > > I have promised infra to do the upgrade and regular maintenance, which I > will do (and am doing), but in view of the discussion "support of mwiki > depending on my person", I do not volunteer to manage/enable account > creation and thereby create a real dependency (or the feeling of one). > > pootle (translate-vm) is a supported infra "product" available to all > projects, so making a Jira os the correct way to get such changes (with > manual account creation it is in the installed version via use of the > backend authentication script). With a Jira we are sure that infra supports > and maintains the change (including manual creation if needed). > > rgds > jan I. > > >> >> Regards, >> Andrea. >> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
