incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Bauer <f...@akerbeltz.org>
Subject Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
Date Sat, 10 Mar 2012 18:42:45 GMT
10/03/2012 08:45 sgrìobh Rob Weir
> 1) We know who made the contribution. This is good from IP 
> perspective, but also from a community perspective. Contributors 
> should get recognition for their work. If they can only contribute 
> anonymously, this is a problem. It also hinders the PMC from 
> recognizing active contributors and offering them committer rights. 
<shrugs> that never seems to have been a problem previously. There 
usually are many more translators, some who contribute only one or two 
translations, than can be listed.
> 3) We need some mechanism for a Committer to review and commit 
> contributed translations. This doesn't necessarily mean that we must 
> have committers that can read 110 different languages. But it does 
> mean that we need a process that a Committer can follow to ensure that 
> the translations are of sufficient quality to be included in a 
> release. An example of such a process could be:
>
> a) Committer verifies the origin of the translation strings,e.g., they 
> came from Pootle server from known contributors.
>
That doesn't ensure anything. I could regularly contribue stuff that 
looks very much like, say, Navajo but no one has any way of knowing if 
it's good or bad if I'm the only one providing Navajo transalations.
> c) At this point the language strings are considered "candidates" and 
> the committer can check the strings into SVN. They are included in dev 
> snapshots as "candidate" translations, but they are not yet included 
> in releases yet. 
That will result in very long delays cause you're in effect doing the 
same job twice and I can't see a language like Gaelic or Bambara being 
very high up anyone's list of priorities.
>
> d) We have some sort of community review procedure. We rely on native 
> speakers to test the translations.
>
And how do you identify native speakers? Especially for smaller 
languages, localization work is often done by fluent learners anyway, 
it's just the sociolinguistics of the small languages.
>
> We probably need a proactive RTC rather than lazy consensus. So maybe 
> we just wait until we get 3 +1's votes from volunteers who have tested 
> the translation. When we have that, then the translation becomes 
> "approved" rather than "candidate".
>
Again, that dooms small languages. How many times do I need to repeat 
that with all the pushing in the world, small languages usually consist 
of a team of 1, maybe two. If I had to wait for 2+ votes on any Gaelic 
localization I've been involved in, I'd still be waiting for a release. 
Two years on, I have a team of two who will, if they have the time, 
install a pre-release and do some light testing and I already consider 
myself lucky having them.

May I ask why you're trying so hard to change a model that worked 
reasonably well before?

Michael

Mime
View raw message