Hi Roberto, >From G11n perspective, not everyone -especially those who are not employees in G11n, which is the case with Gusta- is in the stage of being on daily newsgroups and mailing aliases. That's why we started with mainly communicating with leads. We would have made a good progress together in merging the translations in the time we needed, if only we got the pointer or a response to our emails. At the time it seemed that OO.o product name issue locally in Brazil preoccupied Claudio which I understand is important, but at the same time, our window of opportunity to make changes that we wanted to, passed us.
Having said that, I wouldn't want to discount our efforts that took place as pilot process. It was not the best and ideal yet, but considering that the community had no idea about Sun G11n's job and existence, and G11n didn't really know how to work as part of community, it's certainly a step forward. Community's contribution is welcome and appreciated! Now on 2.0.1 milestone - Translation changes weren't allowed in product update releases in the past, but I don't know for sure if situations are the same. Something to check on my side or Ivo can answer. I've also asked Gusta to take a look at the issue. Young Roberto Salomon wrote: > Young > > Young Joo Song wrote: > > >>Both Gusta and I sent you many emails to follow up since then and were >>given no access to such strings. > > > Augusta has access to the pt-BR mailing list and our wiki page > <http://wiki.openoffice.org.br/twiki/bin/view/Main/AcompanhamentoRevisao>, > where we are discussing the strings, is open. It is unfortunate that > this situation has developed the way it did but it only reinforces my > perception that Sun and the pt-BR community are in dire need for better > communication. > > >>We (G11n and Community) worked together on OO.o 2.0/SO 8 translations >>to complete them by end of March. It's now mid May, and it's >>questionable if SO Release Engineering team will accept any >>translation changes at this time, not to mention an opportunity for >>Gusta to see the changes that have been made. > > > I fully understand the issue with Sun's QA. > > >>I'm all for increasing the quality of the product as much as it's in >>my control and am not against your linguistic approach as long as it >>serves Brazil market. Having said that, I'm troubled as to how to >>proceed with suggested changes. Looks like we just need to make a >>decision here... > > > Being practical here. From all I have gathered and from the stage we are > in the revision process. It seems that it is too late for our work to be > merged and checked by Sun's QA in time for the 2.0 release. There are, > however, some outstanding bugs that are not related to l10n that are > slated for 2.0.1. These issues are relevant to the Brazilian > Government's commitment to Free and Open Source Software. I think we can > agree that we can coordinate in order to work on a common translation > for that milestone. This would give us time to develop a real > collaboration channel between Sun and the pt-BR community and avoid > having our community "scalded" once again. > > Salomon > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
