Hello Ansgar, On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 06:08pm +0900, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > I see the review process more as generally agreeing on the change; not > every problem will be caught anyway. We tend to spend about as much time on wordsmithing to avoid misinterpretations, as discussing what the change should be, I would say. Quite a lot of effort from a number of different people goes into the English wording, whereas other languages receive less scrutiny. > Even if there is a mistake in a translation, it's not like someone will > go the prison for following the "wrong" version. A small enough price > to pay for being a bit more inclusive :) I am open to being convinced, but I do not see how section 4.9 is exclusionary. It is not any kind of systematic downgrading of the other languages, because it is relevant only in the rare case that the English and another version disagree with each other. In such a case, 4.9 enables people to get on with their work, because they can just follow the requirements in the English version. If no version has this status, it would take much longer to determine what to do. Blocking other people's work is not a small price to pay. It is also worth noting that it is extremely unlikely that (i) the English contains an error, but (ii) another language is correct. For that would require the translator to (a) translate the English non-literally, (b) just happen to write the correct wording, and (c) fail to report a bug against the English version about the mistake. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature