Annoucement: New translation status page is installed
Youcef Rabah Rahal
rahal at arabeyes.org
Fri Jun 25 13:49:51 UTC 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Friday 25 June 2004 14:10, Bernd Groh wrote:
> >I am still defending consistency and team work. I simply say that refusing
> >access to someone who is doing _correct_ translations but with a different
> >terminology than a group who is working on the same language, is not
> > coherent with _your_ previous statements and the new system. And hence
> > the inconsistence in the system itself.
> And you're telling me you're not kidding?
Again, no. And again, let's avoid that.
> I am in favour of consistency
> and teamwork, I simply favour inconsistent translations over none. I do
> not refuse someone who is doing _correct_ translations with a different
> terminology access, neither I ever will be. But if I'd see that
> maintainers put in a lot of effort to keep translations consistent, and
> one member would, even after having been reminded, not be willing to
> adapt to a commonly agreed on terminology, I'd fulfill the maintainers
> request on suspending, and if required disabling someones access. This
> is me taking the comments made about consistency issues seriously,
> nothing more. And while I do not see where I am incoherent,
The incoherence is in the fact of saying that everyone is free to translate
without joining in the teams in place, yet his account may be suspended if he
doesnt' abide by the team's rules... Why do the team's views prevail on the
individual's ones ? How do you decide which one is better ? So, finally, new
comers will be obliged to join the teams, no ?
Again, this is no sarcasm, no irony. These are objective questions, that need
clear and non-ambiguous answers if we have to avoid issues in the future.
> even if I
> would become incoherent, because I listen to what the community is
> saying, frankly speaking, I wouldn't even care (on a side note, you're
> not the sole speaker of the community).
I'm not the sole speaker, I never stated the contrary. I'm simply stating
concerns that many others (on this very list !) have expressed. I don't want
to speak on their behalf though.
> Well, maybe the people making these decisions haven't decided yet?
I thought you were in charge of such decisions. Who is then ?
> I have received more emails from arabic speaking members not supporting
> you being the maintainer of all modules than I have received emails in
> support of you. I invite these people to send you an email directly, or
> state their opinion on list, but even if they chose not to do so, their
> opinion is heard.
Bernd, are you really trying to drag me into a
type of debate ?
Speaking about your other emails, you keep reading 'kidding' when there's
none. You keep reading sarcasm when I'm serious. You said I was on a
'mission'. What mission ??!! I'm only concerned about the work of the team
I've been coordinating, and any new work that may be done in the future in
the current framework, if we are to continue. So please, let's avoid these
easy-to-decalare, hard-to-justify statements.
I think I asked some clear questions, which you keep avoiding to answer.
Rather than that, you're going off-track. So, even though your emails say the
contrary, I certainly hope that's not your intention.
Please, no need to answer me on the above paragraph, let's discuss and focus
on the the real issues.
> >Not off track, sorry. This is a _natural_ question. You stated previously
> > that the new system was suggested by the community ? Nobody seemed to
> > question that though many of the posts (if not all) I read note that
> > their authors are rather suprised by the new system.
> Yes, it surprised me too. But maybe the ones preferring the new system
> simply didn't have any reason to speak. People tend to voice their
> opinions more if things aren't the way they want them to be, I am
> exactly the same.
Then, I'll be glad to hear positive opinions.
> >Again, as this new system simply conflicts with what was already in place,
> >with what other projects do
> Why is that again?
That's the central point !
> >, and with what we (as translators) have been
> >familiar with (until two days ago), I'm simply asking, when, by who, and
> >where this request was made ? What community are you referring to ? As far
> > as I know, people interested by Fedora translation (the community) are
> > subscribed to this list, yet I never read any reference about this
> > subject. Should we be subscribed to some other list ?
> Well, we have individual language lists too, all of which are part of
> Fedora. As far as I remember came most requests out of the french and
> brazilian-portuguese communities, is that right? Anyone?
> And really, most emails of critique weren't really criticizing the new
> system, the new system merely made people aware again that everyone can
> commit. But that's not really a fault of the new system, or is it now?
The way you explained it, it's the fault of the new system.
> >It shouldn't take long to answer these questions. A URL should not be hard
> > to paste. If you want me to accept something, please explain it to me
> > first... I'm not asking more than how things really happened. If I missed
> > something than please remind me by pointing me to the right place.
> Ok, can somebody please do that? Please? :)
That's what dragging us off-track the most. If you clearly answer it (it would
take you a second), it will close the debate. In another post, Josep said
that this system is fine _assuming_ it was suggested by the community. I'm
asking to see that suggestion.
For now, I'll I'm reading is people (not all of course) reluctant to adopt it.
> >PS: You can add that to _constructive critisism_ of communication among
> > the Fedora community. If you call for critics, but you can't accept them,
> > then, well...
> Why, oh why, is your "criticism" the only one I can't accept?
I can't answer this question, can I ? And your statement is rather
> response to other emails, I even said, and I quote: "I simply felt it
> was the right thing to do. I could have been wrong.".
Youcef R. Rahal
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the trans