[i18n][tc] The future of I18n
Hi!
The I18n project team had no PTL candidates for Ussuri, so the TC needs to decide what to do with it. It just happens that Ian kindly volunteered to be an election official, and therefore could not technically run for I18n PTL. So if Ian is still up for taking it, we could just go and appoint him.
That said, I18n evolved a lot, to the point where it might fit the SIG profile better than the project team profile.
As a reminder, project teams are responsible for producing OpenStack-the-software, and since they are all integral in the production of the software that we want to release on a time-based schedule, they come with a number of mandatory tasks (like designating a PTL every 6 months).
SIGs (special interest groups) are OpenStack teams that work on a mission that is not directly producing a piece of the OpenStack release. SIG members are bound by their mission, rather than by a specific OpenStack release deliverable. There is no mandatory task, as it is OK if the group goes dormant for a while.
The I18n team regroups translators, with an interest of making OpenStack (in general, not just the software) more accessible to non-English speakers. They currently try to translate the OpenStack user survey, the Horizon dashboard messages, and key documentation.
It could still continue as a project team (since it still produces Horizon translations), but I'd argue that at this point it is not what defines them. The fact that they are translators is what defines them, which IMHO makes them fit the SIG profile better than the project team profile. They can totally continue proposing translation files for Horizon as a I18n SIG, so there would be no technical difference. Just less mandatory tasks for the team.
Thoughts ?
I'd be lead by how the people working in the space want to organize, but...
Seems like SIG would be a good fit as I18N is extremely cross project, presumably everything has text output even if it's just logging and not enduser focused.
my 2¢ -Jon
On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 11:36:38AM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: :Hi! : :The I18n project team had no PTL candidates for Ussuri, so the TC needs to :decide what to do with it. It just happens that Ian kindly volunteered to be :an election official, and therefore could not technically run for I18n PTL. :So if Ian is still up for taking it, we could just go and appoint him. : :That said, I18n evolved a lot, to the point where it might fit the SIG :profile better than the project team profile. : :As a reminder, project teams are responsible for producing :OpenStack-the-software, and since they are all integral in the production of :the software that we want to release on a time-based schedule, they come with :a number of mandatory tasks (like designating a PTL every 6 months). : :SIGs (special interest groups) are OpenStack teams that work on a mission :that is not directly producing a piece of the OpenStack release. SIG members :are bound by their mission, rather than by a specific OpenStack release :deliverable. There is no mandatory task, as it is OK if the group goes :dormant for a while. : :The I18n team regroups translators, with an interest of making OpenStack (in :general, not just the software) more accessible to non-English speakers. They :currently try to translate the OpenStack user survey, the Horizon dashboard :messages, and key documentation. : :It could still continue as a project team (since it still produces Horizon :translations), but I'd argue that at this point it is not what defines them. :The fact that they are translators is what defines them, which IMHO makes :them fit the SIG profile better than the project team profile. They can :totally continue proposing translation files for Horizon as a I18n SIG, so :there would be no technical difference. Just less mandatory tasks for the :team. : :Thoughts ? : :-- :Thierry Carrez (ttx) :
Hello,
First of all, thanks a lot for raising into this thread. Please see inline:
Jonathan Proulx wrote on 9/6/2019 10:37 PM:
I'd be lead by how the people working in the space want to organize, but...
Seems like SIG would be a good fit as I18N is extremely cross project, presumably everything has text output even if it's just logging and not enduser focused.
my 2¢ -Jon
On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 11:36:38AM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: :Hi! : :The I18n project team had no PTL candidates for Ussuri, so the TC needs to :decide what to do with it. It just happens that Ian kindly volunteered to be :an election official, and therefore could not technically run for I18n PTL. :So if Ian is still up for taking it, we could just go and appoint him.
I love I18n, and I could not imagine OpenStack world without I18n - I would like to take I18n PTL role for Ussuari cycle if there is no objection.
: :That said, I18n evolved a lot, to the point where it might fit the SIG :profile better than the project team profile. : :As a reminder, project teams are responsible for producing :OpenStack-the-software, and since they are all integral in the production of :the software that we want to release on a time-based schedule, they come with :a number of mandatory tasks (like designating a PTL every 6 months). : :SIGs (special interest groups) are OpenStack teams that work on a mission :that is not directly producing a piece of the OpenStack release. SIG members :are bound by their mission, rather than by a specific OpenStack release :deliverable. There is no mandatory task, as it is OK if the group goes :dormant for a while. : :The I18n team regroups translators, with an interest of making OpenStack (in :general, not just the software) more accessible to non-English speakers. They :currently try to translate the OpenStack user survey, the Horizon dashboard :messages, and key documentation. : :It could still continue as a project team (since it still produces Horizon :translations), but I'd argue that at this point it is not what defines them. :The fact that they are translators is what defines them, which IMHO makes :them fit the SIG profile better than the project team profile. They can :totally continue proposing translation files for Horizon as a I18n SIG, so :there would be no technical difference. Just less mandatory tasks for the :team. : :Thoughts ?
First of all, I would like to more clarify the scope of which artifacts I18n team deals with.
Regarding translation contributions to upstream official projects, I18n team started with 1) user-facing strings (e.g., dashboards), 2) non-user-facing strings (e.g., log messages) and 3) openstack-manuals documentation.
The second one is not active after no real support for maintaining to translate log messages, and the third one is now expanded to some of project documents which there are the demand of translation like openstack-helm, openstack-ansible, and horizon ([2] includes the list of Docs team repos, project documents for operators and part of SIG).
Based on the background, I can say that I18n team currently involves in total 19 dashboard projects [3], and 6 official project document repositories.
Although the number of translated words is not larger than previous cycles [4], the amount of parts related with upstream official projects seems not to be small.
IMHO, since it seems that I18n team's release activities [5] are rather stable, from the perspective, I think staying I18n team as SIG makes sense, but please kindly consider the followings:
- Translators who have contributed translations to official OpenStack projects are currendly regarded as ATC and APC of the I18n project. It would be great if OpenStack TC and official project teams regard those translation contribution as ATC and APC of corresponding official projects, if I18n team stays as SIG.
- Zanata (translation platform, instance: translate.openstack.org) open source is not maintained anymore. I18n team wanted to change translation platform to something other than Zanata [6] but current I18n team members don't have enough technical bandwidth to do that (FYI: Fedora team just started to migrate from Zanata to Weblate [7] - not easy stuff and non-small budget were agreed to use by Council). Regardless of I18n team's status as an official team or SIG, such migration to a new translation platform indeed needs the support from the current governance (TC, UC, Foundation, Board of Directors, ...).
- Another my brief understanding on the difference between as an official team and as SIG from the perspective of Four Opens is that SIGs and working groups seems that they have some flexibility using non-opensource tools for communication. For example, me, as PTL currently encourage all the translators to come to the tools official teams use such as IRC, mailing lists, and Launchpad (note: I18n team has not migrated from Launchpad to Storyboard) - I like to use them and I strongly believe that using such tools can assure that the team is following Four Opens well. But sometimes I encounter some reality - local language teams prefer to use their preferred communication protocols. I might need to think more how I18n team as SIG communicates well with members, but I think the team members might want to more find out how to better communicate with language teams (e.g., using Hangout, Slack, and so on from the feedback) , and try to use better communication tools which might be comfortable to translators who have little background on development.
Note that I have not discussed the details with team members - I am still open with my thoughts, would like to more listen to opinions from the team members, and originally wanted to expand the discussion with such perspective during upcoming PTG in Shanghai with more Chinese translators. And dear OpenStackers including I18n team members & translators: please kindly share your sincere thoughts.
With many thanks,
/Ian
[1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-March/114191.html
[2] https://translate.openstack.org/version-group/view/doc-resources/projects
[3] https://translate.openstack.org/version-group/view/Train-dashboard-translati...
[4] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2019-July/007989.html
[5] https://docs.openstack.org/i18n/latest/release_management.html
[6] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-i18n/+spec/renew-translation-plat...
[7] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Move_to_Weblate
: :-- :Thierry Carrez (ttx) :
Ian Y. Choi wrote:
On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 11:36:38AM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: :The I18n project team had no PTL candidates for Ussuri, so the TC needs to :decide what to do with it. It just happens that Ian kindly volunteered to be :an election official, and therefore could not technically run for I18n PTL. :So if Ian is still up for taking it, we could just go and appoint him.
I love I18n, and I could not imagine OpenStack world without I18n - I would like to take I18n PTL role for Ussuari cycle if there is no objection.
Great! I posted a review to suggest that the TC appoints you at: https://review.opendev.org/680968
:That said, I18n evolved a lot, to the point where it might fit the SIG :profile better than the project team profile. [...]
IMHO, since it seems that I18n team's release activities [5] are rather stable, from the perspective, I think staying I18n team as SIG makes sense, but please kindly consider the followings:
- Translators who have contributed translations to official OpenStack
projects are currendly regarded as ATC and APC of the I18n project. It would be great if OpenStack TC and official project teams regard those translation contribution as ATC and APC of corresponding official projects, if I18n team stays as SIG.
Note that SIG members are considered ATCs (just like project team members) and can vote in the TC election... so there would be no difference really (except I18n SIG members would no longer have to formally vote for a PTL).
[...]
- Another my brief understanding on the difference between as an
official team and as SIG from the perspective of Four Opens is that SIGs and working groups seems that they have some flexibility using non-opensource tools for communication. For example, me, as PTL currently encourage all the translators to come to the tools official teams use such as IRC, mailing lists, and Launchpad (note: I18n team has not migrated from Launchpad to Storyboard) - I like to use them and I strongly believe that using such tools can assure that the team is following Four Opens well. But sometimes I encounter some reality - local language teams prefer to use their preferred communication protocols. I might need to think more how I18n team as SIG communicates well with members, but I think the team members might want to more find out how to better communicate with language teams (e.g., using Hangout, Slack, and so on from the feedback) , and try to use better communication tools which might be comfortable to translators who have little background on development.
Yes, it's true that SIGs have more freedom in how they operate, and so the diversity of communication tools used by the translators might be another reason the I18n team fits the SIG profile at this point better than the Project Team profile.
Note that I have not discussed the details with team members - I am still open with my thoughts, would like to more listen to opinions from the team members, and originally wanted to expand the discussion with such perspective during upcoming PTG in Shanghai with more Chinese translators. And dear OpenStackers including I18n team members & translators: please kindly share your sincere thoughts.
Certainly, the idea is not to rush anything -- the team will continue to operate as a project team for the time being. But if the team agrees, transitioning to a SIG is pretty cheap, and I feel like the SIG format fits the group better at this point (and gives extra flexibility)... so it is one thing to consider :)
On 2019-09-09 12:30:56 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote: [...]
Note that SIG members are considered ATCs (just like project team members) and can vote in the TC election... so there would be no difference really (except I18n SIG members would no longer have to formally vote for a PTL).
[...]
We've asserted in the past that this should be the case, but no work was done to implement support for it in our technical election tooling once SIGs became an official kind of governance structure. I have taken this as a cue to go ahead and add it, so once this merges it will *actually* be true:
https://review.opendev.org/683727
participants (4)
-
Ian Y. Choi
-
Jeremy Stanley
-
Jonathan Proulx
-
Thierry Carrez