Open Stack

Hello Daisy,

Thank you so much for your kind explanation.

I agree that all of translation data are successfully moved to Zanata,
and I have no objection to remove current Transifex not to be confused 
for OpenStack translation contributor candidates.

I just worried that some guys might want to see previous Transifex 
history: who contributed
to OpenStack translations later, since, the author of translation 
results from Transifex
to Zanata is "OpenStack Infra", not actual translators, as far as I know.
However, I also think that it is very difficult to keep all the history 
to public.

For my OpenStack translation stuff, I do not need Transifex any more.
So if other translators also do not need to see to track previous 
translators in Transifex, then
there is no more additional reason to remove Transifex except querying 
statistics.

And one more idea: although some previous translators are not regarded 
as ATC, I think it would be much better
to mention their Transifex ID (at least) to acknowledge their previous 
contribution or credit on somewhere, such as OpenStack wiki.

Let's discuss on today IRC meeting :)


With many thanks,

/Ian

Ying Chun Guo wrote on 12/17/2015 2:39 PM:
>
> Ian Y,
>
> I will not use the official i18n repo to store those materials.
> I plan to store it in a personal repo in github,
> just to keep the history.
>
> We have moved all data into Zanata while we migrated to Zanata in 
> September.
> 4 months passed, we didn't get any complains about any missing data.
> We could be sure that all data have been moved to the new tool.
> So it's not that necessary to back up.
>
> The only reason to support to not delete OpenStack from Transifex is that:
> it's easy to query the contribution data in any certain period through 
> the web UI of Transifex.
> If we remove OpenStack from Transifex, we will lost the ability to query.
> I could export the contribution data for a certain period, for 
> example, the last 3 years, from Transifex,
> and store the export data somewhere.
> But I will lost the ability to query any periods, for example, the 
> data from 2015.4-2015.10 will not be able to get.
>
> So we could discuss whether we need this ability in the meeting today.
> If we don't need, Transifex is no use for us. We could delete it safely.
>
> Best regards
> Ying Chun Guo (Daisy)
>
>
> "Ian Y. Choi" <ianyrchoi at gmail.com> wrote on 2015/12/17 12:21:34:
>
> > From: "Ian Y. Choi" <ianyrchoi at gmail.com>
> > To: Ying Chun Guo/China/IBM at IBMCN, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse.com>
> > Cc: Robert Simai <robert.simai at suse.com>, 
> openstack-i18n at lists.openstack.org
> > Date: 2015/12/17 12:22
> > Subject: Re: [Openstack-i18n] Transifex
> >
> > Hello Andreas,
> >
> > I am copying & pasting from Andreas's comment to this thread:
> >
> > +++
> > "Sorry, let me clarify this again:
> > * ATC is one year (voting rights for i18n)
> > * Free passes for OpenStack conference is 6 months
> >
> > For ATC, you could take a one time snapshot as well now - going back
> > to 1st of April, instead of saving it for later,"
> >
> >
> > => Thank you so much for your nice clarification on ATC status and
> > summit free passes.
> >
> > We would vote this issue (removing on Transifex site) on today's IRC
> > meeting, and yes.
> > We need contribution statistics data from Transifex, and I agree that
> > we can query and save Transifex statistics data (from April 1 2015
> > to now) and later
> > we would merge this data with Zanata statistics data on next April.
> >
> > And I am not sure exactly, but we might use openstack/i18n repo to
> > store Transfex related data
> > into a specific branch, not a master branch.
> >
> >
> > With many thanks,
> >
> > /Ian
> >
> >
> > Ying Chun Guo wrote on 12/17/2015 1:21 AM:
> > If we don't need the contribution data in Transifex, I think we
> > could remove it.
> >
> > As to the back up, it's a personal habit. I just want to keep it as
> > the history.
> > I will use a repo in github to store the documents, including an
> > Excel file with the contribution statistic data.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Ying Chun Guo (Daisy)
> >
> >
> > -----Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse.com> wrote: -----
> >
> > >To: "Ian Y. Choi" <ianyrchoi at gmail.com>, Robert Simai
> > ><robert.simai at suse.com>
> > >From: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse.com>
> > >Date: 12/16/2015 09:59PM
> > >Cc: openstack-i18n at lists.openstack.org
> > >Subject: Re: [Openstack-i18n] Transifex
> > >
> > >On 2015-12-16 14:45, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > >> On 2015-12-16 14:34, Ian Y. Choi wrote:
> > >>> Hello Robert,
> > >>>
> > >>> As far as I remember, on the last i18n irc meeting (Dec 03 2015 +6
> > >UTC),
> > >>> we discussed this issue.
> > >>>
> > >>> During the meeting, meeting attendees found that querying to
> > >Transifex
> > >>> statistics data
> > >>> is needed to check ATC status for the next OpenStack release,
> > >Mitaka.
> > >>
> > >> ATC status is handed out only for people active in the current
> > >release,
> > >> so for the next summit in Austin, only for people that were active
> > >in
> > >> Mitaka time frame. And since we used Zanata for all of Mitaka,
> > >there's
> > >> no need to query transifex IMO.
> > >>
> > >> Katamo is wrong with ATC status for one year, this has changed,
> > >
> > >See
> > >https://ask.openstack.org/en/question/45531/atc-pass-for-the-openstac
> > >k-summit/
> > >with information for Tokyo summit (1st of April was cut-off-date),
> > >
> > >Andreas
> > >--
> > > Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi
> > > SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
> > > GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton,
> > > HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
> > > GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272
> > >A126
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Openstack-i18n mailing list
> > >Openstack-i18n at lists.openstack.org
> > >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-i18n
> > >
> > >
>