[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Fwd: Ensuring Quality in Ubuntu Translations



Quoting Daniel Nylander (info@danielnylander.se):
> 
> Since we were discussing whether to use Rosetta or not, I guess these
> comments from Matthew East come in handy.
> 
> Matthew pinpoints some of the main concerns.. lack of administrative
> routines, preceeding, quality assurance etc.
> 
> Good information, spend a few minutes a read it.


That's an interesting point which can be easily summarized as "no
matter the tool, the work method is way more important".

I happen to  consider that l10n in Debian can probably be considered
jerky and complicated in many matters, especially as we lack this
Grail: a common infrastructure.. However, despite this, several l10n
teams in Debian have achieved a very good QA process and most
translations are of good quality.

From an outsider point of view, the Ubuntu/Rosetta approach maybe did
put the technical part (the nice non free infrastructure) before the
organizational part (setting up QA processes and work methods),
opening the teams very widely to any random user....and here they are
with 250 French translators...:-)

(I think that all translators are "registered there..including Debian
translators and probably some upstream translators)

The Debian French team consists of about 20 to 40 people and we
already need something like 2-3 people to coordinate all this...of
course very loosely as usual in Debian. And that works pretty
well...because along with time, we built written and unwritten
processes to not only translate a lot but also translate well.

Too late right now to continue on the topic, but there's probably a
lot more to say. Up to you, folks..


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: