On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Petr Kovar <pmko...@gnome.org> wrote: > Hi! > > Dimitris Glezos <gle...@indifex.com>, Mon, 19 Jul 2010 19:03:56 +0300: > > (...) > >> Tao, I think you're 100% right that certain projects and translators >> would prefer having a more "global" system of translation teams. >> That's why projects such as GNOME, Fedora and others have such a >> strong L10n community. These were the communities we had in mind when >> adding the support for "Project Team Re-using/Outsourcing", giving the >> choice to developers to choose this model. Additionally, for some >> other upstream projects, having an upstream team might make more >> sense. > > This seems to be quite a recurring issue, for what it's worth, since we've > had this (or similar) discussion before. The support for "Project Team > Re-using/Outsourcing" is surely an improvement in the current Transifex > implementation, so thanks for that, but from a translation community > perspective, I'm afraid it's still quite missing a point. > > I think that community-empowered l10n infrastructure should be built upon a > paradigm that by default stress out the need for creating and/or > facilitating per-translation-team-based global translation community. I > believe that's the only effective way to do [community] translations in the > FLOSS world.
Every time I tried thinking how this could scale to thousands of projects with different release cycles, while keeping some kind of quality control in place, I failed miserably. Ideas are welcome! =) -d -- Dimitris Glezos Transifex: The Multilingual Publishing Revolution http://www.transifex.net/ -- http://www.indifex.com/ _______________________________________________ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
