Some translators have no access in /doc/en/ (because we did not ask for it). All GDP members must pass the same quiz and should be granted the same rights IMO. Please make sure all guys in cvstrans are also in cvsdocs. Thanks. AFAIK, at least rane & flammie are affected.
Is this decision final? Some months back every gdp-member could change the English docs. Then somebody asked me (SwifT or you, can't remember exactly), to introduce a new group for translators and remove their access to the English docs.
(In reply to comment #1) > Is this decision final? See what Swift has to say... neysx is Ops lead..he's fine with this..and if the strategic lead is okay, this will be good to go I guess.
(In reply to comment #1) > Some months back every gdp-member could change the English docs. Then somebody > asked me (SwifT or you, can't remember exactly), to introduce a new group for > translators and remove their access to the English docs. Correct. Months ago, maybe more than a year, we even considered a group per language. Just too much red tape IMO. Since then, we have introduced a new policy and a doc quiz. It has proved successful with new recruits and all current GDP members will have passed it soon enough, I hope :) It does not seem fair to have translators who have access to /doc/en and others who don't. Anyway, let's wait on Swift's approval.
Well, I don't want to make too much fuzz of this, so I'm not going to hold this just for fun... but I actually feel that it is justified to not give /doc/en access to any GDP by default. After all, not every GDP member gets access to the translation locations (cvstrans) either. I think that each GDP member who wants /doc/en access should ask for it. Why? Because we might have translators who don't master the English language sufficiently to make justified modifications. Which is, after all, the same reason why regular GDP members shouldn't touch /doc/${LANGUAGE}. Just my idea; if you really think this is bulloks, then I'm fine with it - but why have a cvstrans then?
Ok, sounds fair. And of course i ask for it. What else should i fulfil? :)
Umm, I just came across something that makes this whole thing kind of relevant... If all doc devs have en access, only ones with good command over the language should be allowed to make changes (internal docs-team policy maybe?) and not everyone. Non english speaking devs (like rane [just a random example]) who really want to help can be mentored/helped with their english before they have access/can commit. I've seen how interested rane is in helping en as well and I'd like to help him improve his english :) (He's better than ChrisWhite anyway :p) Guess this helps the team as well. What say? a) Leave it as is aka give /en access to those who deserve it. b) Give access to all, but have an internal policy on who touches /en, translations etc.
Something like "give all developers access to /doc/en but have an internal policy about having to follow the real policy and coding style" ? BTDTDW (Been There, Done That, Didn't Work) which is why we are now making the quiz obligated. It's a small step to ask infra to add a certain group (cvsdoc iirc in this case) to a user if he already has CVS access. One other reason would be to have an overview on who's working on English documents (you know we currently have 60+ bugreports again? Okay, quite a few on translations, but still a lot more than the 25 we had a few months ago).
(In reply to comment #4) > I think that each GDP member who wants /doc/en access should ask for it. Why? > Because we might have translators who don't master the English language > sufficiently to make justified modifications. Which is, after all, the same > reason why regular GDP members shouldn't touch /doc/${LANGUAGE}. Well, if rane got access to /doc/en/, which I agree on, because he "masters the English language" (#105509), then I see no reason to refuse grant commit rights to those who ask for it. I have no problem with a grant-on-demand policy.
