Quoting Gerfried Fuchs (alfie@ist.org): > So you think leaving it open to people with no history in translation > to work on these things is a good approach because you can't write it > all yourself? Sorry, but that's a pretty blindfold and naive approach > and is more hurting that it does good... Well, speaking for myself, I would definitely vote for a better system than the one we have. However, when it comes at packages descriptions, the amount of work is *so huge* that having a kind of "first round" where even not perfect translations can enter, is probably better than nothing. You know, most of the original package descriptions suck quite a lot anyway, with approximative English and more than often Frengligh, Germish, Spanglish, or Geek-Jargonish....so showing less broken "translations" of Not-So-Good English is more an enhancement than a disaster. This is indeed why I changed my mind and, for instance for French, I accept the compromise that far-from-perfect translations are done for some packages. So, better system: we definitely need it. Stop the work until we have it: I don't think that would be the best solution. So, advice to ppl hurted by imperfect German in packages descriptions translations: turn them off and stick with ugly geeky airport English..:-)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature