Re: Translation owner (was: Slides from the Debconf6 2nd BOF about i18n infrastructure)
Is there a reference where all the Debian process stages are defined:
ITT, RFR, LCFC, etc I feel like I'm in acronym soup heaven.
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 11:30 +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> 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