On 11/25/14, 12:37 AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>My vote would be a -0 right now, strongly leaning towards a veto - on >principle. > >I object on (at least) 3 points: > >- This is a solution looking for a problem; a waste of everyone's time. Well, it is the board member’s recommendation. I actually hope to use the proposal as a way to invite folks to contribute translated versions. I’ve posted the proposal on the wiki [1] and added the following: "Besides code, the community often contributes and maintains other text in comments and other documents. This document intends to describe how we provide optional versions of these documents for folks who prefer non-US English writing." > >- Enforced language rules will raise the bar for entry, especially for >non-native speakers. It's hard enough most of us to even write >English, let alone having to worry about which dialect to use. Even >the fact that there is such a distinction will be beyond most - even >native speakers. This is a good point. The proposal should not be written in a way as to raise the bar, it is only intended to make it clear that corrections should be made in the direction of US English rules, in order to shut off one dimension of the debate. So how about adding this: “Good-faith efforts at modifying text by non-native speakers generally should not be vetoed. Instead, native speakers are encouraged to thank them and simply make corrections.” > >- This endless discussion will only lead to more endless discussions, >as there is nothing as contentious as "correct" language use ... >should I have used single quotes? Do we avoid fancy words like >"contentious"? Was the use (twice!) of "endless" really necessary, or >did it only add to the passive/aggressive nature of this sentence? How >about that ellipsis, did I use that correctly? Should I have >capitalized (capitalised?) the "should" right after the ellipsis? etc. >etc. Well, I hope not. We’re exposed to discussion of this nature regardless of this proposal, and we haven’t had too many in the past. We don’t need consensus here; a simple majority will suffice. I added the following on the wiki proposal, but am ready to remove it if it is going to be too controversial. "Discussions of proper use of US English, and what choice of words are most effective can often be controversial. If you think some words should be changed, first consider how important it is, then start a discussion before making changes. Very few, if any, changes of this sort must be made before releasing. It is generally better to publish it and get feedback from the wider community.” Let me know if that helps you feel more comfortable about this proposal. -Alex [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Localization+Plan [1] http://s.apache.org/FlexLocalization
