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

Re: Translation owner (was: Slides from the Debconf6 2nd BOF about i18n infrastructure)

On Monday 22 May 2006 22:40, Javier SOLA wrote:
> What we need to specify are the translation processes that we have to be
> open to, and - in each one of these processes -  which rights are given
> to each participant.

Debian translation is currently very open (and thats a Good Thing), 
basically anybody that's willing to put in the work is automatically part 
of the team and gets a say, in other words Debian translation is a doocracy

> A flexible application would allow a team to chose a process, assign
> rights to each type of participant and to decide which type of
> participant can delegate rights (admit) other types of participants.

right, note that the current debian translation process is very open and 
relatively informal, IMO that's a good thing

> Should only the Translation manager allow new people in?...
> or can a reviewer accept new translators?...

all that's needed to become a 'translator' is to send in an ITT and get 
started, i.e. roll up your sleaves and get involved, the ITT is mostly to 
prevent double work

> or a translator accept new reviewers?.  

to become a reviewer, you just start replying to RFR and LCFC mails on-list 
with your review comments. 

-> you only need to know how to use a mail-client, and send in comments to
   the list 
-> the review process is informal and free-weeling:
   - no 'minimum number of reviews needed'
   - instead there's a minimum number of days (3 for the Dutch team) you
     have to wait for comments before going to the next stage
     (RFR->LCFC->aproved, RFR or LCFC might repeat) along with the agreement
     that ongoing discussion blocks going to the next stage.
   - ITR's also temporarily block going to the next stage (indeed that's
     there purpose)
   - final descision after discussion always goes to the translator.
     Discussion often involves some back and forth to find better
     translations (especially with some of the more technical debconf
   - can branch of DICO discussion to reach concenus on translation
     terminology, outcome of which gets logged in the wiki.

once review has ended the translator 'commits', usually by sending in a 
wislist bug
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)

Attachment: pgpekWZaU6naY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: