On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 5:46 PM, sankarshan <foss.mailinglists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Rajesh Ranjan <rajesh672@gmail.com> wrote:
> But TWN as well as Zanata community can push the translation till the date
> we are not going for the evaluation of the mobile module for Hindi language.
> So assume, if both TWN and Zanata contributions are pushed in fuel.git, then
> we will have four versions of translations for fuel-mobile module in Hindi
> language. And it would be easier during the evaluation meet to decide from
> different choices and the working community can choose the best after
> discussion.

As FUEL upstream, I am sure that you know better. What I did found odd were:

- an announcement that did not explain about the "additional location" concept

https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/fuel-discuss/2013-February/000420.htm

The link, I already posted a link ^^ apart from what Ankit posted, says clearly that we need multiple contributions:

-- fuel
    |-- as
    |   `-- terminology
    |       |-- desktop
    |       |   |-- cdac.po
    |       |   |-- individual_1.po
    |       |   `-- translatewiki.po
    |       |-- mobile
    |       |   |-- cdac.po
    |       |   |-- individual_1.po
    |       |   `-- translatewiki.po
    |       `-- web
    |           |-- cdac.po
    |           |-- individual_1.po
    |           `-- translatewiki.po


 The link below says something similar:

https://fedorahosted.org/fuel/wiki/NewsLetters/CY2013Q1#CollaborationwithTranslatewiki.net-ANewEra
 
- a plan that was not clearly articulated on the list for the upstream project

It may be...but we tried to make it clear and it was duly discussed in Language Summit, Pune as well
 
- a method that has an eerie resemblance with Mozilla and its multiple
entry points to translation for the same locale/language



Here, the comparison of Mozilla situation with FUEL Project is fully invalid and odd:

FUEL Project is a linguistic resource project working for Terminology, Style Guide, Rendering System, Quality Assessment etc. For terminology we need multiple suggestions from different working communities, not a single translated file. The different suggestions will be helpful while we do organize evaluation meet/workshop of different communities to choose the best one. Here we need more contribution for a single file from different users/communities and so when we got chance, we collaborated with TWN and so with Zanata. 

 
The "Mozilla method" had the seeds of forming splinter communities of
contributors instead of the tools providing an unified platform. That
was the scary downside.



Again I want to emphasize that the comparison can be done on similar things. Mozilla and FUEL both have entirely different needs.

FUEL don't want to build consensus on one single file. During FUEL Marathi Mobile Evaluation Meetup, we realised the importance of multiple suggestions. The presence of multiple suggestions helped much in choosing good terms in native language. So this need can not be fulfilled by a single file submitted by a single community. 

ps. Every project has its pros/cons and may be Mozilla have some -ve aspect, but I respect Mozilla being it a open source project and we should engage ourselves to make it better.

-- 
Regards,
Rajesh Ranjan

FUEL GILT Conference 2013
http://fuelproject.org/gilt2013/index