Annoucement: New translation status page is installed
bgroh at redhat.com
Fri Jun 25 10:05:00 UTC 2004
you're kidding, right?
>>Then what? Well, then we can talk to this person, and if s/he unwilling
>>to use the "right" terminology, then we can think of disabling her/his
>>account. Btw, I do translate 'Forward' with "Next" if 'Next' is meant,
>>and not with "Forward", consistent or not! IMO, it's just plain wrong!
>>;) Just kidding. :)
>Not sure this is consistent with the rest. How do you define the 'right'
>terminology if there's no precise framework ? Why should someone be prevented
>from translation if his translations are correct yet using another
Wasn't your voice one of the loudest raising the issue of consistency?
Since I believe that the comments made concerning consistency are very
valid, I am suggesting solutions on how some of the problems can be
handled with the given system. If you don't think someone should be
prevented from doing translations that are correct, but inconsistent
with everything else, what exactly were you on about previously?
>>Noted. A maintainer is, as opposed to the translator, a permanent (well,
>>in theory) entity. The maintainer can commit at any time and release the
>>assignment of a translator at any time, hence, keep someone from
>>comitting. A maintainer is a person who is willing to take
>>responsibility for the quality and consistency of a module, a group of
>>modules or for an entire language. And while it is a good thing to have
>>a maintainer, it is not a requirement. I know you think it should be,
>>but that's exactly where we disagree. I believe a translation community
>>can function well, even without having a designated maintainer, and
>>that's what the system really is made for, to better manage the efforts
>>of self-maintained translators.
>Yes. A translation community can indeed function very well without having an
>established team and/or maintainer and this is proven everyday. However, when
>there are teams in place, they need to be considered.
Yes, and I believe they are. If a coordinator of an active community (as
in the group of people having the common interest of wanting to
translate Fedora into their language, including "newer" translators) who
has the support of most of the members of that language group requests
to be a maintainer, this request is not denied.
>A question: this new system has been installed after a request from the
>community, right ? How come many (if not all ?) people on this list are
>surprised ? ;) I don't remember a post on this list introducing the new
>system nor someone posting to request it ? Or are you referring to another
>Some URLs would help. Sorry if I missed something.
Please, don't you think you're going a little off track here? Is that
your idea of constructive criticism, or are you simply on some kind of
mission now? Why do you ask me? Why don't you ask the people suggesting
to lock files to disallow two translators from comitting at the same
time, since that's the main thing that's new. And I still believe their
reasoning to be very valid.
>Youcef R. Rahal
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Fedora-trans-list mailing list
>Fedora-trans-list at redhat.com
Dr. Bernd R. Groh Phone : +61 7 3514 8114
Software Engineer (Localization) Fax : +61 7 3514 8199
Red Hat Asia-Pacific Mobile: +61 403 851 269
More information about the trans