On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 07:28, Khaled Hosny <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 12:24:31AM +0300, Adi Roiban wrote: > > Hi, > > > > During the last UDS we have talked about various reasons why people > > blame Ubuntu translations. > > > > This is a long email, but I think that the raised issue is very > > important and it is fundamental for the way in which Ubuntu translations > > are perceived by users, developers and other/upstream translators. > > > > One of the cause is the due to the fact that for some languages everyone > > (whether he/she knows or not the language) can submit a translation and > > that translation will land directly in Ubuntu. They can also > > delete/modify translations coming from upstream projects. > > > > This can happen for Ubuntu Localization teams that use an open policy > > for membership, or for teams that does not check whether or not the new > > members are able to assure the translations quality. > > > > I would like to note that the main goal of Ubuntu Localization Teams is > > to assure that quality of translations. Everyone is free to suggest > > translations and suggesting translations for Ubuntu is not limited to > > member of those teams. > > > > This email was triggered by an incident occurred in the Ubuntu Slovenian > > Team where one of the team members was submitting approved translations > > for Slovenian but they were in fact Russian translations (using latin > > alphabet). > > > > >From my point of view membership of Ubuntu localization teams should be > > moderated and before approve a new member, the team coordinators will > > have to take the requires measurement to make sure that person is aware > > of hes/her role in the team and the team's commitment to quality. > > > > We can also go further and follow the model used for LoCo teams and have > > approved and unapproved localization teams. And approves teams would be > > the one able to assure a minimal degree of quality. > > > > I know there are pros and cons for opening or moderating a team, but I > > think that all Ubuntu Localization teams should be moderated and have at > > least one active member willing to moderate new members, assure the > > translations quality, and be the spoke person for that language inside > > the Ubuntu community. > > > > Below is a list of team with open membership policy. > > I am aware that all translations are base on voluntary work and everyone > > is helping as best as he/she can. > > My intention is not to blame a person or a team, but I think that we > > should try not to ruin the work of other people. > > A bad translation could fail an application from starting, or it can > > confuse the user or lead to erroneous actions. > > > > The main questions: > > 1. What do you think? > > 2. Should we moderate membership for localization teams and implement > > some minimal quality checks or we should have open team without any > > quality assurance measures? > > I totally agree with this, we had this before in Arabic (the team was > open) and we ended up with the worst Gnome translation, despite all > incremental improvements upstream. > We ended up (after passing team ownership to new one) with a moderated > team, with only few members, and who is welling to contribute do so by > suggesting translations and another team member will review and accept > it. > > I'm all with having moderated teams by default, it doesn't make any > sense to have open teams at all. From my experience, translation isn't > an easy task, and well-intended but ill-informed volunteers usually get > it all the way wrong, ranging from linguistic to technical mistakes. And > some team owners don't even care about this, since, unlike many upstream > teams, whoever applies for a team first get it without any attempt > qualify him (compare with Gnome for example). > > > Also in favour of moderated teams. In case nobody wants to be in charge of a translation team, a message on the translation team page with an invitation to step up might be in place. We should also consider brainstorming about the different approaches for accepting new translators. Perhaps a wiki page with a list of approaches and which one is accepted by which team. This could stay as suggestions or we might consider drafting a minimal requirement for all teams. Eyal
-- ubuntu-translators mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-translators
