If there were translation teams...
bgroh at redhat.com
Mon Jun 28 06:17:06 UTC 2004
Josep Puigdemont schrieb:
>On Sat, 2004-06-26 at 08:16, Bernd Groh wrote:
>>>If there were translation teams, and I was the coordinator of my team...
>>Isn't that the case? Do you want to be the maintainer of all modules for
>>catalan now or not? I haven't heard any objections, so it's yours for
>>the taking. :)
>I wanted to ask the other Catalan translators who are not subscribed
>here for comments, if they had any objections, etc, in our own mailing
>list (fedora at softcatala dot org). Although I haven't done that yet, I
>did apply as a maintainer for dist module (I was too lazy to go over all
>modules and apply for each one of them).
Hmmm, I didn't get any request. :(
I'll look into it.
>>>All that... of course, if there were translation teams...
>>Well, there are, we know that, don't we? :)
>YES, there are! It is just that newcomers will not notice if we don't
>tell them (ok, they will notice there's a maintainer, though, but that's
>>>Briefly, combining teams with the new method have a lot of potential
>>>that we should explote.
>>>Again, this is only my view, and there might be flaws, if there are I
>>>hope you can spot them and tell me :)
>>No, I didn't spot any flaws, a lot of your suggestions have already been
>>put in place with the new system. And that exactly is it what puzzles
>>me. Given you've just suggested a lot of things that we've just put in
>>place with the new status pages, why again is it that it is criticized
>>so much? Why even do people say it nullifies existing translation teams?
>Because they are not mentioned at all, nor they seem to be encouraged,
Well, they weren't mentioned before, and as I read it, was most of the
critique addressed particularly against the new status pages. Or was the
critique not addressed at the new status pages in particular, but "now"
or "new status pages" actually referred to "then" and "since the
beginning"? If that's the case, why not say so explicitly, why blame the
newest change? At least then I would have understood what you are on
about and could have simply agreed with you straight away.
>and because if I am a new translator I wouldn't know who to contact to
>(GNOME tells me very clearly to check for my team's coordinator). I
>don't think that what Christian meant was that teams can not be
>implemented, I think he meant that teams are not needed at all, thus
>will hardly be created, because you have to consider that translation
>teams have lots of translators with the best intentions that get tired
>too quickly (at least in my short experience).
Can you understand though, that it is hard for me to tell what is meant
if the new status pages are blamed in particular? I believe, that the
new status pages were simply a trigger, however, I am still not entirely
>>I don't have to get it, or do I? ;)
>Note, I don't want to claim this as "my suggestions". This is just what
>I could come up with by trying to be constructive, and mixing the "new"
>method with the traditional [and sound] teams method. It seems to be
>what you had in mind from the beginning, but it wasn't clear to some of
>us. But don't forget that all my posts beg for the presence of teams, I
>want them badly because I think they are the best way to guarantee
>quality and consistency, plus I add that the new system has potential,
>and can be useful to the teams, but I don't think it will be good
>>>Bernd: these might be the scriptures you were asking for :)
>>Nah, that's pretty much the path I am going, as said, and a lot has been
>If the path you're going is the path we are going, maybe we should also
>know what the future plans are, and the direction we're taking.
Of course, we want to get team pages up. And maybe that should be the
next step, together with creating mailing lists for the individual
languages. We all want that, Fedora wants that. Otherwise, I have to
continue with how *I*'d do things, and that is *not* to be taken as any
plans Fedora may have, it's what would happen if I had a say. I am not
going to deny someone cvs access unless I have a person that I can make
accountable for that decision. But, if there's a well organised team,
that has a dedicated coordinator, then, on request of that coordinator,
given it has the full support of the group, I'd be willing to require
authorization, and not simply grant cvs access for that particular
language. If nobody from within that language group is willing to take
responsibility, and be accountable, then I am not going to make such
call. Though I'd like to encourage groups, I am not going to mandate
them. Hopefully groups will form, if they don't, well, so be it. I
rather have people independently working on files, than not at all. I do
not want to have a system that doesn't work if there's no group, or no
coordinator to be found. I want to have a coordinator, or maintainers,
that really want to be there, and aren't just there because somebody
needs to do that job. And if a language group decides they function
better without having a designated coordinator, since none is to be
found, I would like to support that too. Nobody has to take on that
responsibility if s/he doesn't really want to. Nobody has to be a
maintainer if they only want to contribute translations. Only if you
want this responsibility and you make yourself accountable to the
user-community using that language-version of Fedora, only then you
should take on maintaining a module, or on a larger scale, become the
coordinator for an entire language. And that's basically it. However,
that's only how I see things, of course, opinions differ, as we all know. :)
>>implemented with the new upgrade. I simply won't restrict anyone cvs
>>access until we're fully organized, that's all. :)
>Ok, why not speed it up a bit, then? How can we help?
>Seems to me that the crowds want teams. Then make a poll and check if
>that is so, and if it is, let's try to organize teams... Make a call for
>team building, or just look who's been committing for each language to
>find out who could be a maintainer (ask them to be maintainers, as you
>wanted us to ask translators to become part of our teams, I know you
>already did), or who could be a member of a team... Look the headers of
>the po files for email addresses of translators, see if they are
>subscribed here, maybe you could invite them to (maybe thank them for
>their work too)...
No poll required, I believe team pages are necessary. How you can help?
Well, maybe you can look at who's been commiting for each language and
email me the list? :) Or, at least, and that's what everyone can help
with, see who's been committing for your language, ask them to join this
mailing list and speak up, and not just if things aren't the way they
want them to be. And, thank you!
>We should all post what we think the next step should be... it costs
>nothing to do, and it will help a lot.
>I think that whatever the methodology/system for translations is going
>to be, it should be discussed in this list. Like I think this new method
>should have been discussed here too before being implemented. I mean, it
>is us (translators should be subscribed here) to whom it affect, and yet
>we didn't know about it until it appeared (at least I didn't).
Sounds reasonable. The participants of the individual mailing list will
then have to post every system related issue that comes up also to this
list though, since I couldn't do it, even if I wanted too. :) Maybe you
can ask them to post all system related requests to this list? Thank you!
>So... TRANSLATORS: if you want your views to be listened, speak up.
>Nothing that you would like to be implemented will be unless we ask it
>for. And for those that can implement things, thanks for doing so! And
>please, keep us up to date about the next move, maybe we can improve it,
>maybe we can even help with it!
I'll keep you up to date.
>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