#linuxcnc-meet Log v0.1


Recorded agenda
2013-07-27 16:58:42

!start 201307 July meeting agenda logging started
2013-07-27 17:01:55
DISCUSS: 1: adopt semantic versioning
2013-07-27 17:04:52
DISCUSS: 2: tabled agenda items automatically appear the next month
2013-07-27 17:33:50
DISCUSS: 3: About translated documents
2013-07-27 17:47:19
VOTE: 3: Remove translations that are full of English
2013-07-27 17:52:23

Meeting adjourned
2013-07-27 17:53:37
Next meeting: 2013-08-24, 1600 UTC
2013-07-27 17:56:29

!end 201307

log row count=404
2013-07-27 16:58:42 archivist !start 201307 July meeting agenda logging started
2013-07-27 16:59:04 seb_kuzminsky good morning :-)
2013-07-27 16:59:04 archivist afternoon
2013-07-27 16:59:07 seb_kuzminsky heh
2013-07-27 16:59:53 mhaberler hi folks
2013-07-27 17:00:05 jthornton hi
2013-07-27 17:00:24 skunkworks joined chan
2013-07-27 17:00:26 cradek I texted jmk
2013-07-27 17:00:46 cradek (he's #2)
2013-07-27 17:00:54 cradek ok it's time; let's start
2013-07-27 17:00:55 seb_kuzminsky "you're being truant! this will reflect badly on your quarterly performance review"
2013-07-27 17:01:09 zultron 'morning
2013-07-27 17:01:18 mhaberler fine. Meeting chair today is?
2013-07-27 17:01:23 seb_kuzminsky oh, he's got a topic on the agenda, i see
2013-07-27 17:01:29 seb_kuzminsky i volunteer to be secretary again
2013-07-27 17:01:32 cradek I can do it again
2013-07-27 17:01:42 seb_kuzminsky great
2013-07-27 17:02:01 mhaberler I suggest we divide the chores - jthornton?
2013-07-27 17:02:17 cradek is imcmahon here?
2013-07-27 17:02:19 jthornton this is my first meeting so I'm green
2013-07-27 17:02:26 jmk-mcfaul_ joined chan
2013-07-27 17:02:30 cradek does anyone know who that is?
2013-07-27 17:02:31 seb_kuzminsky it's funny that the first two topics dont have their champion present
2013-07-27 17:02:32 mhaberler that is a very good precondition
2013-07-27 17:02:36 seb_kuzminsky oops, just one of the first two
2013-07-27 17:02:57 seb_kuzminsky hi jmk!
2013-07-27 17:03:05 jmk-mcfaul_ hi
2013-07-27 17:03:13 zultron ssi, I just pinged him.
2013-07-27 17:03:22 mhaberler hi jmk!
2013-07-27 17:03:23 cradek ah thanks, ssi is in #linuxcnc-devel
2013-07-27 17:03:29 seb_kuzminsky should we table imcmahon's item?
2013-07-27 17:03:41 cradek let's give him a minute to join
2013-07-27 17:03:54 zultron Or come back after he's on.
2013-07-27 17:04:00 andypugh Does the idea even work when the "2" is almost the name of the project?
2013-07-27 17:04:25 cradek zultron is right - should we move to #2 and come back to #1 later if he appears?
2013-07-27 17:04:33 zultron Yes
2013-07-27 17:04:34 seb_kuzminsky sure
2013-07-27 17:04:37 jmk-mcfaul_ ok
2013-07-27 17:04:56 cradek jmk-mcfaul_: please start us
2013-07-27 17:05:36 jmk-mcfaul_ these meetings were proposed to avoid the impression that if the "in crowd" doesn't want to do something, it just gets ignored
2013-07-27 17:05:58 jmk-mcfaul_ if tabling an agenda item makes it disappear, that isn't much different
2013-07-27 17:06:24 seb_kuzminsky we table things if we don't reach a decision
2013-07-27 17:06:35 jmk-mcfaul_ to me, tabling an item carries an implied promise that it WILL be addressed in the future
2013-07-27 17:06:42 mhaberler I agree.
2013-07-27 17:06:43 seb_kuzminsky the intent is that the people who care about that thing will bring it up in discussion before the next meeting
2013-07-27 17:06:57 cradek the sponsor can put the item on next month's agenda, even during the current meeting, if he's not satisfied with the tabling and hopes to make progress in the next month and then talk about it again
2013-07-27 17:07:02 zultron a counter-arg is that the proposal's owner may untable the next month.
2013-07-27 17:07:03 seb_kuzminsky and then add it again if needed (if the discussion doesn't resolve it)
2013-07-27 17:07:15 jthornton would it not be the responsibility of the author to add it to the next meeting?
2013-07-27 17:07:21 seb_kuzminsky jthornton: i think so
2013-07-27 17:07:27 cradek jthornton: that is what I propose too
2013-07-27 17:07:43 jmk-mcfaul_ so basically, we are talking about the "default" behavior
2013-07-27 17:07:47 seb_kuzminsky yeah
2013-07-27 17:07:56 zultron (this is the opposite of my stand talking with cradek last week)
2013-07-27 17:08:17 zultron There's a communication issue here though:
2013-07-27 17:08:18 steve_stallings compromise... make the default that the first time a item is tabled it automatically goes on the agenda for only the next meeting, thereafter it has to be submitted again
2013-07-27 17:08:22 cradek I like the idea that a proposal needs a sponsor to keep driving it forward.
2013-07-27 17:08:23 seb_kuzminsky zultron: you're a flip-flopper
2013-07-27 17:08:28 jmk-mcfaul_ I propose that the default is "an item stays on the agenda until explicitly removed", while others are proposing "an item disappears unless its advocate takes continued action to keep it active"
2013-07-27 17:08:28 skunkworks it puts some of the responsibility on the author.. (which I agree with..)
2013-07-27 17:08:47 cradek I agree with jmk's framing
2013-07-27 17:08:56 jthornton I agree the sponsor should drive the proposal
2013-07-27 17:09:04 zultron if we do end up making it the author's responsibility, it should be very clear that just because an issue was tabled doesn't mean that it's not welcome next time, and persistence will be rewarded.
2013-07-27 17:09:14 jthornton yes
2013-07-27 17:09:15 cradek I agree with zultron
2013-07-27 17:09:17 seb_kuzminsky yes
2013-07-27 17:09:43 seb_kuzminsky i could add a blurp to MeetingsOnIRC to that effect
2013-07-27 17:09:51 seb_kuzminsky what do you think of that idea jmk?
2013-07-27 17:10:00 andypugh I think that defaulting to re-appear automatically is probably best, but a decision is made each time to re-table or to explicitly remove.
2013-07-27 17:10:01 cradek to me tabling only means "not enough information or consensus to effectively decide this yet"
2013-07-27 17:10:06 steve_stallings should people other than the original proposer be allowed to put the tabled item back on the next meeting agenda?
2013-07-27 17:10:07 jmk-mcfaul_ I'm clearly in the minority here
2013-07-27 17:10:19 skunkworks steve_stallings: sure
2013-07-27 17:10:20 cradek steve_stallings: IMO yes, if they want to work on making it progress
2013-07-27 17:10:21 zultron andypugh's idea sounds good too.
2013-07-27 17:10:22 jmk-mcfaul_ cradek, "yet" is the key word.
2013-07-27 17:10:25 archivist I prefer option 2 else something can drag on forever
2013-07-27 17:10:47 jmk-mcfaul_ keep in mind that anyone can put anything on the agenda
2013-07-27 17:10:54 cradek the perverse outcome we avoid by behavior #2 is the item lives on even though nobody wants to work on it
2013-07-27 17:11:07 jmk-mcfaul_ so "tabling" a proposal really doesn't mean anything'
2013-07-27 17:11:15 andypugh Effectively "Tabling" to me actually means moving to the next months agenda.
2013-07-27 17:11:26 jmk-mcfaul_ andypugh, right
2013-07-27 17:11:36 seb_kuzminsky not quite, to me
2013-07-27 17:11:52 jmk-mcfaul_ if we want it gone from the agenda, because it is there but has no advocate, then vote it off
2013-07-27 17:11:53 seb_kuzminsky to me it means "the person who wants this needs to drive the issue forward more before we can decide"
2013-07-27 17:11:59 cradek I don't know what it means - feels like we're trying to define that
2013-07-27 17:12:17 seb_kuzminsky that may or may not happen, but it's up to the person who wants the decision to do the leg-work of building consensus and understanding in the community
2013-07-27 17:12:24 andypugh I have no preference either way, but we do need to be clear what we mean.
2013-07-27 17:12:42 cradek maybe we should just vote NO in the "not enough information or consensus to affirmatively decide this" situation
2013-07-27 17:12:53 cradek maybe "tabling" is just obfuscation
2013-07-27 17:12:56 jmk-mcfaul_ I should have done my homework before now, but stand by while I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_%28parliamentary_procedure%29
2013-07-27 17:12:57 seb_kuzminsky cradek: i think that's a bad idea
2013-07-27 17:13:23 seb_kuzminsky it sends the message that we decided not to do that thing, when really we just couldnt come to a decision yet
2013-07-27 17:13:24 mhaberler tabling means 'remains undecided'
2013-07-27 17:13:25 zultron Voting 'no' sounds final.
2013-07-27 17:13:31 DaveB if you take a roberts rules approch then you differentiate between "table" and "postpone" - table goes away now and it takes an explicit action to bring back to active; postpone is to a definite time (usually) - that puts an item in old bix for the next mtg
2013-07-27 17:13:33 elson joined chan
2013-07-27 17:13:52 zultron I like that.
2013-07-27 17:13:57 seb_kuzminsky DaveB: that matches my understanding of "table"
2013-07-27 17:14:05 andypugh Aha, once again a case where two nations are divided by a common languuage. It seems that US and UK usage are polar oppsites.
2013-07-27 17:14:07 cradek ok, bad idea, I like the idea of "remains undecided" as mhaberler says
2013-07-27 17:14:16 jthornton so an item could be tabled or postponed
2013-07-27 17:14:36 mhaberler what does that mean for the next iteration?
2013-07-27 17:14:38 cradek sigh, four states is not better than three
2013-07-27 17:15:01 zultron time check: 2 minutes 'til we table this issue
2013-07-27 17:15:04 seb_kuzminsky yes let's keep it as simple and un-procedural as possible
2013-07-27 17:15:05 cradek I feel like we shouldn't vote on this proposal if we don't define what tabling is
2013-07-27 17:15:07 jmk-mcfaul_ I was unaware of the dual meaning of "tabled" till just now
2013-07-27 17:15:30 jmk-mcfaul_ at this point I think I'd rather delete the "tabled" state and call it postponed
2013-07-27 17:15:31 seb_kuzminsky do we agree that issues need champions?
2013-07-27 17:15:40 jthornton yes
2013-07-27 17:15:41 cradek yes
2013-07-27 17:15:43 seb_kuzminsky and the champions do the work of driving consensus?
2013-07-27 17:15:44 DaveB Or you copuld be a tad less formal and just have an old biz section in the agenda - if not decicion and you want to keep topic alive, make motion to "move to old biz for next mtg"
2013-07-27 17:15:45 zultron yes
2013-07-27 17:15:47 jmk-mcfaul_ but I still think that the issue should remain on the agenda till resolved'
2013-07-27 17:15:51 jthornton yes
2013-07-27 17:15:59 mhaberler assume Jan1 2014 meeting, one postponed item: is that up for a vote again? and how ist that different in treatment from 'tabled' - meaning 'on list but not up for decision'?
2013-07-27 17:16:05 zultron what if the champion disappears?
2013-07-27 17:16:09 cradek yes
2013-07-27 17:16:26 cradek zultron: if nobody is doing the work of driving consensus, the proposal doesn't happen
2013-07-27 17:16:30 seb_kuzminsky if we all agree on the champion's importance and role, the default behavior seems less important
2013-07-27 17:16:36 mhaberler in that scenario 'tabled' equals 'shot down'
2013-07-27 17:16:45 jmk-mcfaul_ what mhaberler says
2013-07-27 17:16:45 steve_stallings back to compromise offering, a "postponed" item could disappear after not being decided for N number of tries
2013-07-27 17:16:58 mhaberler with a record of the fact
2013-07-27 17:17:03 jmk-mcfaul_ if we want to make an item disappear, we should have the courage to explicitly do so
2013-07-27 17:17:07 seb_kuzminsky i like "the champion needs to re-add it if they want it still", because it moves the work from "the meeting has to decide to remove the item if the champion goes away" to "the champion has to re-add it if they still want it"
2013-07-27 17:17:09 cradek I simply don't see what is keeping someone from editing next month's agenda
2013-07-27 17:17:13 DaveB Diff from tabled is vocabulary mostly- Table has specific meaning in formal processes - so I tend to think that when I see the term- too much time in standards groups over the years ;-(
2013-07-27 17:17:18 andypugh I think each meeting we need to consider the postponed items, and make a decision either to re-postpone (typicaly at the "champion's" behest, or to decide to drop it from the agenda (which is like a "no" but gentler)
2013-07-27 17:17:27 cradek we CAN'T just make something disappear because the agenda is open
2013-07-27 17:17:47 mhaberler I agree with jmk. It is unwise do adopt the style of killing an effort by bloodless bureaucratic warfare.
2013-07-27 17:18:03 cradek ugh that's unnecessarily hyperbolic
2013-07-27 17:18:15 cradek please assume good faith
2013-07-27 17:18:16 mhaberler but it did sound great!
2013-07-27 17:18:18 jmk-mcfaul_ cradek, I know an advocate can keep putting things on the agenda - this isn't about what is possible
2013-07-27 17:18:19 archivist dont want edit wars on the wiki either
2013-07-27 17:18:25 jmk-mcfaul_ it is about how things are percieved
2013-07-27 17:18:36 mhaberler yes
2013-07-27 17:18:39 zultron jmk-mcfaul_, yes.
2013-07-27 17:18:40 mhaberler that is a key aspect
2013-07-27 17:19:02 mhaberler and the motive to start these meetings was because the perception was not good
2013-07-27 17:19:05 andypugh archivist: That sounds like a problem to confront if it occurs, rather than in fear of it occurring.
2013-07-27 17:19:27 archivist true
2013-07-27 17:19:28 steve_stallings if inclusiveness is really our goal, we need to get this meetings outcome in front of people more aggressively
2013-07-27 17:19:32 zultron No answer, being ignored, dropping things off agendas can easily be perceived as "NO".
2013-07-27 17:19:38 cradek I think it's understood that we don't delete others' agenda items, right?
2013-07-27 17:19:53 jthornton yes
2013-07-27 17:19:55 cradek that means we don't have edit wars
2013-07-27 17:20:00 cradek so nonproblem
2013-07-27 17:20:16 seb_kuzminsky tabled doesnt mean dropped, it means 'please talk to us clearly and explain what you want and convince us'
2013-07-27 17:20:18 jmk-mcfaul_ oh, but we do delete others peoples agenda items (at least that is what you are proposing)
2013-07-27 17:20:27 cradek we're way over time. jmk can you add to next month's agenda and we'll discuss more on the lists?
2013-07-27 17:20:28 zultron Let's postpone this discussion. (Seriously)
2013-07-27 17:20:31 mhaberler I think they should get off the agenda if there was a decision, and with an explanation/log (at least if negative)
2013-07-27 17:20:34 jmk-mcfaul_ after every meeting, every agenda item is deleted
2013-07-27 17:20:52 mhaberler decided or not?
2013-07-27 17:21:00 zultron postpone.
2013-07-27 17:21:02 cradek IMO that's a big stretch of "delete"
2013-07-27 17:21:13 memleak joined chan
2013-07-27 17:21:17 memleak Hi.
2013-07-27 17:21:19 andypugh It's a new blank page, not an active deletion.
2013-07-27 17:21:20 zultron Move the discussion to the lists.
2013-07-27 17:21:30 cradek I don't think we should vote on this today
2013-07-27 17:21:36 jmk-mcfaul_ it was there before the meeting, was not explicitly rejected in the meeting, but is gone after. how is that not a delete?
2013-07-27 17:21:48 mhaberler good point
2013-07-27 17:21:58 cradek it was discussed at the meeting. that's the promise you get by putting something on the meeting's agenda
2013-07-27 17:22:16 mhaberler I dont think this is enough to delete it
2013-07-27 17:22:19 DaveB old biz and new biz section for th eagenda make it clear that old stuff will come back and is not forgoten and new things go into new - no "what does a blank" page mean issues then
2013-07-27 17:22:21 ve7it joined chan
2013-07-27 17:22:32 mhaberler that is normal procedure, yes
2013-07-27 17:22:58 seb_kuzminsky if we do it that way, how do things get removed from the old biz section if the champion doesn't ... champion the cause?
2013-07-27 17:23:00 archivist and only bring across postponed items
2013-07-27 17:23:11 seb_kuzminsky we have a yes/no/table/remove vote?
2013-07-27 17:23:34 DaveB someon can make a motion to remove XYZ from old biz for whatever reason is appropriate
2013-07-27 17:23:40 jmk-mcfaul_ seb_kuzminsky, at every meeting, we should address every item. That could include saying "hey, it looks like nobody cares about this, i propose we remove it"
2013-07-27 17:23:54 steve_stallings yes
2013-07-27 17:23:58 seb_kuzminsky hmm, ok
2013-07-27 17:24:00 cradek I spelled out my objections to that on the list. an advocate might be on vacation one month.
2013-07-27 17:24:03 elson Yes.
2013-07-27 17:24:10 jmk-mcfaul_ that way the decision to remove is explicit
2013-07-27 17:24:17 mhaberler I think the key question is how to gauge champion interest
2013-07-27 17:24:23 andypugh cradek: They can always bring it back in that case.
2013-07-27 17:24:26 cradek that means his item would get voted NO just because he doesn't appear that one time
2013-07-27 17:24:32 seb_kuzminsky voting to remove is not the same as voting no on the item, it just means "don't auto-propagate this item to next month's old-biz section"?
2013-07-27 17:24:44 jmk-mcfaul_ cradek, so, you are willing to protect the item when he is on vacation, but you want to delete it by default?
2013-07-27 17:24:46 cradek andypugh: then we're saying a NO vote isn't final either?
2013-07-27 17:25:01 cradek jmk-mcfaul_: I disagree with your usage of delete, so I can't answer that question
2013-07-27 17:25:16 andypugh It's not a "no" it's a "no longer being considered"
2013-07-27 17:25:17 jmk-mcfaul_ cradek, as long as anyone can put anything on the agenda, then a NO vote isn't really final either
2013-07-27 17:25:23 jthornton seems clear to me if an item can not be resolved the head of the meeting ask the author to add that item to next month
2013-07-27 17:25:45 seb_kuzminsky jthornton: that should be up to the author/champion
2013-07-27 17:25:48 cradek in that case, then how many kinds of no votes do we need? I feel like this is bordering on silly.
2013-07-27 17:25:51 jthornton exactly
2013-07-27 17:26:01 skunkworks or can add it back when enough information is gathered to advance the case
2013-07-27 17:26:05 jmk-mcfaul_ today we have two kinds of no votes
2013-07-27 17:26:08 jmk-mcfaul_ NO means no
2013-07-27 17:26:13 andypugh "NO" is more for ideas such as "I propose that we merge our codebase with Minecraft to incorporate 3D design"
2013-07-27 17:26:13 CaptHindsight joined chan
2013-07-27 17:26:14 jmk-mcfaul_ table means remove from agenda
2013-07-27 17:26:42 cradek table means stop talking about it at this month's meeting, nothing more
2013-07-27 17:26:54 jthornton yes
2013-07-27 17:26:55 cradek what happens at the next meeting depends on the next meeting's agenda
2013-07-27 17:27:00 mhaberler procedural issues should not be relegated to issue champions, rather by rules the chair/meeting follows, and they need to be spelled out
2013-07-27 17:27:27 seb_kuzminsky mhaberler: yes, we're currently trying to agree on the procedure that we're spelling out
2013-07-27 17:27:43 jthornton perhaps more research needs to be done on this item
2013-07-27 17:27:46 cradek again, I simply don't see what is keeping someone from editing next month's agenda
2013-07-27 17:27:59 jmk-mcfaul_ well, the procedure most of the group favors puts the burden of keeping a proposal active squarely on the proposer
2013-07-27 17:28:02 seb_kuzminsky but we just agreed (i think) that issue champions drive individual issues in the agenda
2013-07-27 17:28:06 steve_stallings being intimidated by the "in crowd"
2013-07-27 17:28:20 seb_kuzminsky jmk-mcfaul_: that sounds like a feature to me :-)
2013-07-27 17:28:25 andypugh This is a bit of a catch-22 here. We have an issue that probably needs to be "tabled" but we can't do that until we decide what that means. A recursive agenda!
2013-07-27 17:28:29 jmk-mcfaul_ someone new to the group or less outspoken might feel intimidated by that
2013-07-27 17:28:36 cradek yes I also think that's a feature
2013-07-27 17:28:45 DaveB UH, I sense a tar pit looming... the discussion of how to handle combos or procedural rules can go a long time.... if we want a set of rule to use, then I'd suggest Robert's as they ahve been worked on my many for many years... if we want to be more informal, then do what we tink is best as things come up. But I'd rather not reinvent procedure from sratch - Back to lurking now
2013-07-27 17:28:52 mhaberler I do not think so, it is in fact a problem
2013-07-27 17:29:08 seb_kuzminsky jmk-mcfaul_: i think i see your point
2013-07-27 17:29:30 cradek I agree the point is valid
2013-07-27 17:29:46 seb_kuzminsky you're worried that if someone proposes something that we don't reach consensus on, they'll feel too intimidated to keep talking about it on the mailing lists and add it again next month?
2013-07-27 17:29:54 jmk-mcfaul_ potentially
2013-07-27 17:30:06 jmk-mcfaul_ we heard pretty much exactly that complaint in wichita
2013-07-27 17:30:16 zultron Yes, that was me. ;(
2013-07-27 17:30:17 jmk-mcfaul_ (not in regard to meetings of course)
2013-07-27 17:30:41 seb_kuzminsky zultron: not just you :-(
2013-07-27 17:30:55 mhaberler I do have several reports by folks hesitation expressing themselves even on the list
2013-07-27 17:31:15 mhaberler and I do take these people serious
2013-07-27 17:31:20 seb_kuzminsky if people are too timid to post to the list, i don't know how to help them :-/
2013-07-27 17:31:28 jmk-mcfaul_ the mechanics are not what I'm interested in - the perception is. it now seems that at least a few more people get where I'm coming from. given that, I'm willing to "table" this till next month, and we can try to come up with a way to handle the mechanics
2013-07-27 17:31:39 zultron It's easy for a newcomer to equate lack of interest or decisiveness with a NO.
2013-07-27 17:31:40 andypugh How about we move to a vote on the item as originally stated?
2013-07-27 17:31:53 mhaberler this isnt necessarily about lists, it is about style too
2013-07-27 17:31:58 cradek jmk-mcfaul_: do you want a vote, or do you want to put it on next month's agenda?
2013-07-27 17:32:42 jmk-mcfaul_ next months agenda. after reading that "tabled" means different things in different countries, I think I want to change the proposal to eliminate that word, maybe use postpone instead
2013-07-27 17:33:00 cradek that's a good idea, I also had no idea about the language problem
2013-07-27 17:33:09 cradek ok let's move on
2013-07-27 17:33:12 steve_stallings yes
2013-07-27 17:33:16 jmk-mcfaul_ yes
2013-07-27 17:33:28 mhaberler what is the result of this agenda item?
2013-07-27 17:33:32 seb_kuzminsky ok, but can we keep talking about this on the list?
2013-07-27 17:33:36 steve_stallings yes
2013-07-27 17:33:37 seb_kuzminsky mhaberler: postpone
2013-07-27 17:33:44 zultron postpone; discuss on list
2013-07-27 17:33:50 mhaberler ok
2013-07-27 17:33:52 elson yes
2013-07-27 17:33:56 jmk-mcfaul_ and generate a revised proposal for next month
2013-07-27 17:34:00 zultron 3. Documents: Remove text from untranslated documents and leave a note about how to update the file when it is translated. Currently untranslated documents are not referenced in the PDF or HTML documents. All references point to the English files unless a translated file is present. Untranslated documents are not up to date and create extra work for anyone editing the documents. (jthornton)
2013-07-27 17:34:02 cradek jthornton: please start us
2013-07-27 17:34:25 andypugh Given that we don't know wjat we mean by "postpone" then maybe it should be minuted as "withdrawn by proposer for re-submission" :-)
2013-07-27 17:34:36 jmk-mcfaul_ works for me
2013-07-27 17:34:36 jthornton I'd like to remove all the untranslated text from the spanish docs and leave a note explaining where to get a current copy to translate
2013-07-27 17:35:02 seb_kuzminsky our translations are a mess and i welcome discussion on how to fix it, but i'm not sure that's the way
2013-07-27 17:35:08 elson maybe the other lang. docs should be viewable, and have a link to the English doc, and a note that translations would be welcome.
2013-07-27 17:35:09 jthornton I actually think the Polish and German docs could be removed until someone steps up to the plate to translate them
2013-07-27 17:35:18 andypugh Yes, having english language present in something published as a translation feels wrong.
2013-07-27 17:35:29 jthornton and misleading
2013-07-27 17:35:37 steve_stallings will this mean that incremental submissions are not possible, and only a complete translation is accepted
2013-07-27 17:35:48 cradek is it true that some of the files are still fully english, even though they have names like _es...?
2013-07-27 17:35:54 seb_kuzminsky cradek: yes
2013-07-27 17:35:57 jthornton yes
2013-07-27 17:36:08 jmk-mcfaul_ well, that is less than good
2013-07-27 17:36:17 jthornton most of the es files are english and not up to date with the english docs
2013-07-27 17:36:21 cradek yeah that seems really bad, since a new translator may start from an old version
2013-07-27 17:36:22 seb_kuzminsky ideally i'd like a system like gettext for our docs, where individual strings can be translated
2013-07-27 17:36:25 jmk-mcfaul_ I favor a plan that supports incremental translation though
2013-07-27 17:36:37 andypugh I can see the reasoning that they are acting as a placeholder and safe repository for any translation that does happen.
2013-07-27 17:36:46 jthornton each chapter can be translated at a time
2013-07-27 17:36:48 seb_kuzminsky po4a promises string-wise incremental translation, but i haven't tried it
2013-07-27 17:36:51 cradek jepler tried weblate and we got some results from that in 2.5
2013-07-27 17:37:01 jthornton I've got the file size of most chapters small
2013-07-27 17:37:07 seb_kuzminsky weblate translates gettext strings, not our docs
2013-07-27 17:37:16 cradek oh right
2013-07-27 17:37:40 cradek but I understand po4a+weblate is a possible answer
2013-07-27 17:37:42 cradek ?
2013-07-27 17:37:52 seb_kuzminsky i think it might be, but i haven't looked closely at it
2013-07-27 17:38:18 cradek is jthornton's idea (remove the outdated english from those files) better than doing nothing in the short term?
2013-07-27 17:38:49 jthornton when I talk to people on the forum about translations the all tell me that google translate and others can not translate technical docs
2013-07-27 17:38:50 andypugh It will at least have people looking at correct docs they can't read rather than out of date docs that they can't read
2013-07-27 17:38:59 archivist outdated spanish?
2013-07-27 17:39:06 jmk-mcfaul_ andypugh, well put
2013-07-27 17:39:12 jthornton all the people read the current English docs
2013-07-27 17:39:34 seb_kuzminsky english and maybe french are the only ones that are any good, as far as i know
2013-07-27 17:39:49 seb_kuzminsky that's because we all work on the english, and tiss works on the french
2013-07-27 17:39:57 jthornton yes the French docs are fine and a few of the Spanish have been translated
2013-07-27 17:39:58 seb_kuzminsky the other translations were created but not maintained
2013-07-27 17:40:12 steve_stallings assuming a good Spanish translation is created, what happens as it grows outdated due to neglect this time around?
2013-07-27 17:40:12 jthornton yes
2013-07-27 17:40:26 seb_kuzminsky in the absence of a translator, the translations will certainly bitrot
2013-07-27 17:40:28 jthornton same as the French it gets outdated
2013-07-27 17:40:55 cradek I don't think there's a technical solution to that human-problem
2013-07-27 17:40:57 jmk-mcfaul_ its just like any project - in the absence of a maintainer it rots
2013-07-27 17:41:00 seb_kuzminsky yes
2013-07-27 17:41:04 jthornton yes
2013-07-27 17:41:10 skunkworks google translate... ;)
2013-07-27 17:41:11 cradek (unfortunately)
2013-07-27 17:41:19 elson Google translate is a joke, it allows you to (barely) understand a simple document, it is VERY rough
2013-07-27 17:41:21 seb_kuzminsky skunkworks: apparently it doesnt work for technical docs
2013-07-27 17:41:24 jthornton google translate fails for technical
2013-07-27 17:42:04 cradek I think we have two questions: what do we do short term, and will someone work on figuring out what to do for the long term
2013-07-27 17:42:05 andypugh There probably is a system that links translated texts together by paragraph or sentence, and can tag the translations when a related version changes. (I guess that the english docs are likely to be the "master" version, even if that it philosophically unsatisfactory)
2013-07-27 17:42:05 jmk-mcfaul_ but becoming maintainer for a translation is a big task. it would be nice to support incremental translation so the average bi-lingual user can contribute on a "time available" basis
2013-07-27 17:42:19 steve_stallings sounds like there is no good soulution, on a human decision can determine if the outdated version is worse that no version
2013-07-27 17:42:28 jthornton the note in each untranslated doc is for developers and translators to tell them where to get the current text
2013-07-27 17:42:41 seb_kuzminsky andypugh: that's gettext, which we use for strings in our software, and po4a does it for docs
2013-07-27 17:43:10 cradek I would love it if po4a+weblate would work
2013-07-27 17:43:16 seb_kuzminsky jmk-mcfaul_: weblate promises to do that, and it works with gettext, so it might work for po4a too
2013-07-27 17:43:20 CaptHindsight committing to translate and maintain an entire document might be too much work for most, maybe only chapters at a time
2013-07-27 17:43:27 jmk-mcfaul_ it is a difficult problem. suppose we eliminate all untranslated text, and link to the latest english as jthornton proposes
2013-07-27 17:43:28 cradek wish jepler was here to talk about weblate, which he ran for a while but then shut down
2013-07-27 17:43:38 jmk-mcfaul_ that does nothing about bitrot of the translated parts
2013-07-27 17:43:41 andypugh It sounds like there is a solutuion, but that it is a lot of work, and needs an at least bilingual dev to do it.
2013-07-27 17:43:51 elson yes, absolutely.
2013-07-27 17:43:56 zultron time check: 5 minutes left for discussion
2013-07-27 17:44:01 jthornton jmk-mcfaul_, we already link to the English docs
2013-07-27 17:44:14 cradek (jepler is on vacation but should be around before next month's)
2013-07-27 17:44:18 seb_kuzminsky i don't know if that solution (gettext+po4a+weblate) will actually work, no promises there
2013-07-27 17:44:25 cradek sure
2013-07-27 17:44:29 jmk-mcfaul_ jthornton, yes, you are proposing that we get rid of the untranslated (and perhaps out of date) text
2013-07-27 17:44:31 cradek have to investigate it first
2013-07-27 17:44:52 seb_kuzminsky i can imagine measuring the fraction of translated strings, and not publishing a translation if it's below, say, 5%, or 50%, or 95%
2013-07-27 17:45:05 andypugh Perhaps the link should point out how effective a way to learn something translating its docs is :-)
2013-07-27 17:45:17 seb_kuzminsky heh
2013-07-27 17:45:21 jthornton I'm proposing we delete the German and Polish docs which are not translated at all and put a note in each chapter of the Spanish docs on how to get the latest text to translate
2013-07-27 17:45:38 cradek yeah I see only upsides to that small step
2013-07-27 17:45:52 jthornton each chapter of the untranslated Spanish docs
2013-07-27 17:45:55 steve_stallings I support jthorton's human judgement 8-\\\\0
2013-07-27 17:46:01 seb_kuzminsky sounds good
2013-07-27 17:46:08 mhaberler There is no information loss, its in git, so I would say yes
2013-07-27 17:46:14 jmk-mcfaul_ if there is no german in the german translation, then yes, it is stupid to have it
2013-07-27 17:46:19 seb_kuzminsky i'll volunteer to remove german and polish docs & packages
2013-07-27 17:46:20 andypugh It isn't like the other translations can't be reinstated if a lunatic translator appears.
2013-07-27 17:46:26 memleak this might be a bad suggestion but what about intltool?
2013-07-27 17:46:29 jthornton seb_kuzminsky, thanks
2013-07-27 17:46:40 jthornton I'll put the notes in the Spanish docs
2013-07-27 17:46:48 seb_kuzminsky go to vote?
2013-07-27 17:46:53 jmk-mcfaul_ second
2013-07-27 17:46:54 jthornton yea
2013-07-27 17:47:03 steve_stallings yes
2013-07-27 17:47:05 mhaberler yes
2013-07-27 17:47:07 jmk-mcfaul_ yes
2013-07-27 17:47:07 DaveB yes
2013-07-27 17:47:08 skunkworks yes
2013-07-27 17:47:09 zultron aye
2013-07-27 17:47:23 seb_kuzminsky yes
2013-07-27 17:47:24 pcw_home joined chan
2013-07-27 17:47:24 cradek I was too slow
2013-07-27 17:47:27 andypugh yes
2013-07-27 17:47:28 zultron aye
2013-07-27 17:47:30 jthornton lol
2013-07-27 17:47:30 cradek anyway, i also vote yes
2013-07-27 17:47:30 elson yes
2013-07-27 17:47:32 jthornton yes
2013-07-27 17:47:48 jmk-mcfaul_ jthornton voted twice.... tsk tsk
2013-07-27 17:47:59 cradek ok, thanks for volunteering to fix up the packaging stuff seb_kuzminsky
2013-07-27 17:48:01 seb_kuzminsky oh, we're doing this in master aka 2.6, not in 2.5, right?
2013-07-27 17:48:04 jthornton well I agreed to go to vote
2013-07-27 17:48:04 andypugh No, the area above the subject change was voting to vote :-)
2013-07-27 17:48:10 cradek zultron: thanks for helping me watch the clock
2013-07-27 17:48:24 jthornton seb_kuzminsky, good question
2013-07-27 17:48:44 cradek ooh good question
2013-07-27 17:48:53 jthornton I would do it in both
2013-07-27 17:49:05 elson yes, it's not code, do it in both
2013-07-27 17:49:38 elson I still favor keeping the doc, but having it say "not translation yet written for please help,
2013-07-27 17:49:48 elson see for English version.
2013-07-27 17:49:51 cradek we have menu entries that pull up docs for installed systems. if it breaks those for non-english users we should not do that in a .n release
2013-07-27 17:50:04 elson Umm, yes.
2013-07-27 17:50:14 seb_kuzminsky let's just do it in master
2013-07-27 17:50:17 cradek I don't know what branch I recommend without studying that kind of thing
2013-07-27 17:50:20 jmk-mcfaul_ agree with cradek - a minor release should only fix breakages, not add them
2013-07-27 17:50:26 cradek I'm fine with master of course
2013-07-27 17:50:34 seb_kuzminsky arguable these outdated docs are breakage
2013-07-27 17:50:42 jthornton yes
2013-07-27 17:50:44 zultron I don't see ssi here, so meeting adjourned?
2013-07-27 17:50:52 cradek yeah sorta arguably
2013-07-27 17:50:55 mhaberler I do have an item I consider important which I would like to discuss under a 'Any other business' headline - i.e. non-decision
2013-07-27 17:50:58 andypugh Suits me, I have stuff to do.
2013-07-27 17:51:11 jthornton if I install as German does LinuxCNC use the German docs?
2013-07-27 17:51:41 seb_kuzminsky jthornton: i think if your LANG environment variable is set to "de", many strings in our software show up in german
2013-07-27 17:51:42 zultron cradek, no prob with the clock, my other agenda is my wife's + my 8th anniversary today. ;)
2013-07-27 17:51:42 cradek mhaberler: can we do that in the regular channel?
2013-07-27 17:51:52 mhaberler fine, provided you guys are present
2013-07-27 17:52:03 zultron See y'all!
2013-07-27 17:52:04 cradek ok, I think we should adjourn
2013-07-27 17:52:05 jthornton ok, then that could be a problem in 2.5
2013-07-27 17:52:08 seb_kuzminsky good meeting, folks! i'll mail out minutes later this weekend
2013-07-27 17:52:24 steve_stallings I would also like to discuss web site in user channel.
2013-07-27 17:52:28 elson Thanks, all! Sorry I got here late. Thanks Steve for the reminder!
2013-07-27 17:52:30 seb_kuzminsky zultron: enjoy your anniversary :-)
2013-07-27 17:52:41 zultron Thanks1
2013-07-27 17:52:54 seb_kuzminsky i'll be around in #linuxcnc-devel for afew minutes
2013-07-27 17:53:05 mhaberler great! so:
2013-07-27 17:53:21 mhaberler Let me say this - I am a bit angry, but - compatible with the Wichita takeaway that we would cooperate in good faith - I try to make my point in a professional way:
2013-07-27 17:53:21 mhaberler We did received encouragement - if not to say pressure - to move ahead with the unified build branch and bring it into shape for merging.
2013-07-27 17:53:22 mhaberler We have arrived at this point - a first candidate is available. This is what we need from you now:
2013-07-27 17:53:37 mhaberler We need active and constructive work - not just on our side, but by the core developers who express interest. This is what I am requesting you to do - please to read through the - admittedly at this point fragmentary - documentation link I posted, build this branch on your own machines, and report back, ideally via the tracker so issues are not lost. I have already received lots of constructive feedback from many non-core developers
2013-07-27 17:53:39 mozmck joined chan
2013-07-27 17:53:51 mhaberler We routinely test on several platforms (me on 5 different ones), and I do push stuff which I found to at least pass runtests. It is very clear the fundamental changes which this work brings about will also require changes to the build environment, some to the better. We need these to happen, and we cannot effect them since this is not in our control. It is - as things stand - a hopeless cause if the stance is 'you guys push this thr
2013-07-27 17:53:52 mhaberler the buildbot and we go from there' - this effort will not succeed without a more proactive attitude.
2013-07-27 17:53:52 mhaberler I hope to continue in the Wichita spirit!
2013-07-27 17:54:28 jmk-mcfaul_ mhaberler, I thought we agreed to continue this discussion in the other channel?
2013-07-27 17:54:35 mhaberler aja, my fault
2013-07-27 17:54:37 mhaberler thanks
2013-07-27 17:55:39 archivist !end
2013-07-27 17:56:29 archivist !end 201307