One thing is, we should probably ensure that there's an independent reviewer (who speaks the language) .... *or* run it through a translation app.... before approving because, I can imagine a malicious actor putting undesirable messages in there.
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 8:27 AM Shahar Epstein <[email protected]> wrote: > Following up the discussion in the thread(s) of accepting the Catalan > language, I'd like to discuss the raised concerns here, in a separate > thread. > Concerns were raised regarding the acceptence criteria of the following: > A. Translations - do we want to apply specific conditions for what > languages we accept? If so, what exactly and for what reason? > B. Translation owners - do we want to ensure that translation owners are > active contributors (e.g., by specifying certain level of activity in the > project)? > Also, C. If we make changes in the policy according to the above (A)+(B) > that existing translation(s) (owners) do not comply with, do they apply > retrospectively? > > > My personal opinions regarding the above: > A. -1 - I think that as long as the language is standardized and there's at > least one contibutor who's willing to maintain it - I don't see a good > reason why to prevent it, > even if it's regional or constructed language. > To put it short - if Wikipedia could allow it (and does that > succesfully), there's no reason that we won't (also, applying such > conditions would put a barrier for the Klingon and en_pirate :) ). > > B. -0 We probably won't have anytime soon enough committers that speak all > of the languages - so I think that we should allow some flexibility. That's > why the sponsorship model was proposed in the first place. > However, if we see it doesn't work in the next 2 released (i.e., sponsored > translations remain unmaintained) - then we should consider to require some > level of activity in the airflow repo. I don't think that we should take an > immediate action about that, but If the community thinks that otherwise - I > won't be against. > > C. (A)+(B). I don't think that it's fair for contributors who worked hard > on existing translations that we'll remove them due to a ruling that has > been taken after > their work has been merged. If we decide to apply any restrictions, > they should be applied only for languages that are merged after the voting > (nontheless, > the existing policy still applies - if they stop maintaining their > translation, it might be removed unless there's someone else willing to do > it [accepting > the new translation owner would be according to the up-to-date policy]). > > > Finally, I would to clarify to avoid any misunderstanding (it's written in > the current policy) - sponsoring code owners (committers) are responsible > to ensure that the translation owners fulfill their roles. > If for any reason they don't, the code owners may look for someone else to > maintain the translation, or should raise a vote to remove it from the > codebase. > > > Shahar >
