incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Heidegger>
Subject Re: Working groups - different approach
Date Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:40:03 GMT
On 2012/02/10 06:50, Rob Weir said:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Michael Bauer <> 
> wrote:
>> Putting it the other way, would you give just anyone the right to 
>> commit new (structural) code?
>> Community translation has its good sides and it's bad sides. What 
>> will undoubtedly happen is that there will be disagreements over 
>> style, terminology and orthography. Unless you have the option of 
>> making someone the "arbiter" of that locale, you end up with the most 
>> nauseating hotchpotch of style, terminology and orthography. Some of 
>> the Google interface languages are like that. I have read a little in 
>> the mailing list. Openoffice uses a pootle server for translation[1]. 
>> It might be worth to think if that might be useful for us too. 
> Apache projects tend to look at this slightly differently.
> Traditional, vertical organization: Someone (or group of persons) is 
> in charge and decides what will be done, and then delegates that 
> authority to other individuals who have that authority and decide such 
> matters. Parts of Apache are like this, at the foundation-level. For 
> legal reasons there are individual officers with formal 
> responsibilities and authority that supports those responsibilities.
> But within a project, it is more like horizontal organization, 
> consensus based. The community agrees that it wants consistency in 
> terminology in the UI translations. Someone volunteers to define a 
> basic terminology, the community adopts it as a "coding standard" and 
> agrees to treat deviations like a bug. Someone might volunteer to 
> review these items and fix errors and general facilitate consistency 
> in the translations.
> So I think you end up in the same place in both models. You achieve 
> consistency. In both cases there is leadership, but in the 2nd case 
> there is no appointed leader with authority. There is just a volunteer 
> who, by his efforts exerts a kind of personal leadership in that area.

I think that is a pretty good summary.


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message