Docs Successes and Needs

Karsten Wade kwade at
Fri Jan 19 08:49:08 UTC 2007

Sorry about the delay in responding.  Paul Frields and I collaborated
tonight on a response, and I'll be glad to bring you up to speed.

On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 16:11 -0500, Paul Gampe wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > Outstanding Issues:
> > 1.  Translation Project disconnect - what do we need here in concrete
> > terms?  
> I had been approached a few times regarding this topic, but as yet do not
> know exactly what is required.  Is this project scoped somewhere I can
> reference?

We describe some of the needs below.  They've also been voiced in some
recent fedora-trans-list threads by L10n Project members, but no replies
have been seen from the L10n leadership.  The community created a Wiki
page some time ago to flesh this out.[1]  The goal is to create a way
in which volunteer translators can work more fluidly with Fedora 
developers (where Fedora is the upstream source) and with documentation.

A continuing problem is that neither the Documentation team nor the L10n
team is sure what, exactly, they need.  But to figure out the exact
needs is going to require input from and discussion with the Red Hat
teams involved.  That needs to happen in community space.

> > App rewrites and process changes?  Red Hat internal group(s) 
> > originally had ownership of this, yet we've seen no progress in the past
> > months... or year(s).
> The Red Hat internal group you are referring to here was approached to hand
> over the code to the translation web applications which was done some time
> ago.  I am not sure what has happened since then, but depending on the
> scope I may be able to help.

Yes, that group said then they had no time to work on Fedora L10n
infrastructure.  Since Fedora Infrastructure now has resources where RH
and non-RH community can collaborate, perhaps L10n is in a better
position to seed this upstream work.  Things needed:

* CVS on elvis.r.c merged over to, including
account migration and CLA completion by users (non-trivial).

* Port existing Perl Web app to Python so it can be supported and
maintained by the community.

* Renewed vigorous and committed leadership from Translation Project
leaders inside Red Hat, including embracing the Fedora leadership

> > 2.  Content from RH, licensed under our terms (OPL w/no options).
> Was there a thread discussing the selection of this license?

This was resolved internally at Red Hat between Mark Webbink and Content
Services.  It was done to align RHEL docs to be upstream/downstream of
content from Fedora, so they both needed the same license[3].

= = =
Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor    ^     Fedora Documentation Project 
 Sr. Developer Relations Mgr.     |           |          gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the fedora-docs-list mailing list