Re: What about DDTSS do you (dis)like?
On 9 June 2011 18:42, Michal Simunek <michal.simunek@gmail.com> wrote:
> Very good idea. Here is real model of translating package description
> for our team (Czech - cs). I'm fetching descriptions and give it to the
> translators to translate. Then I review their work, so pending
> translations isn't needed for us, but there are others.
Let me see if I understand this. You determine which packages to
translate and then the people fetch them themselves? In that case the
pending list is indeed useless.
> I thing, that l10n teams has their own wordlist for any kind of
> translations. Terms, names etc. must also correspond with for example
> debconf templates. DDTSS translator must not be a debconf translator.
I think we're agreeing. There is currently a wordlist, it's just not accessable.
> That's great. All as you wrote. External reviews and e-mail interface in
> most cases spam, or translations from not experienced and anonymous
> users, that translates a very few descriptions and mostly with bad
> results, and it's very hard to find and control/correct this.
Ok, so to crystalise the idea, we'd have five levels:
- Superuser, to manage languages
- Language manager to handle configuration of language
- Trusted reviewers/coordinators
- Logged in user
- Not logged in users
Note there is one aside. You suggest that you want to be able to
control the email interface. I wasn't thinking of going there, that
would need a lot more consensus I think...
> +1 Only small suggestion further to above. Language
> manager(s)/coordinator(s) should have the final word in approving
> translations.
Well, I want to be able to leave the precise set-up to the language
managers. And give enough flexibility to support different models.
Some languages have no strong manager, in that case you want to
provides ways to make it work anyway.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@gmail.com> http://svana.org/kleptog/
Reply to: