Hi,
Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org> (05/03/2007):
> I would like to propose you (aka Debian translators AND
> debian-l10n-english contributors) a new project. This project has "No
> Name Yet" and is indeed a full debcon templates rewrite/proofread
> project.
>
> Please comment on the project idea....and the process below. Of
> course, proofreading my English is also needed.
I fully support the idea, but I have a few comments (see below).
[...]
> ========================================================================
> Step 1: notify the package maintainer
> <DAY00> to <DAY06>
>
> One of the members of the rewrite team ("the reviewer") notifies the
> package maintainer of the intent to work on the package's templates.
>
> The reviewer sends a message with "[ITT] po-debconf://<package>/en.po"
I would say ITR (Intend to review) instead of ITT (adding tags to the
various bots is a very easy task).
> A 7 days delay is given to the package maintainer to ACK for this
> action or deny it.
Why would you ask for an ACK to submit a wishlist bug proposing an
improvement? I would move this ACK request between step4 and step5
(which would also give time to maintainers to "review the review" before
starting the translation updates).
[...]
> ========================================================================
> Step 4: Send the review to the BTS
> <DAY16>
[...]
> ========================================================================
> Step 5: Call for translation updates
> <DAY16>
[...]
Note also that this action should be coordinated with the debconf
maintainers. The support of the "Note" template is probably going to be
dropped, but I don't know when. If it's early in the release cycle (and
knowing that many of these debconf notes are pointless even in a
NEWS|README.Debian files), it would be a waste of time to review these
templates.
Cheers,
--
Thomas Huriaux
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature