Thanks Shahar to have the discussion here.
I don't see issues with the current model we have. I'd propose to change
the rules if we see _real_ issues. I am sure that one or the other
language will potentially lose interest and we might need to remove it.
But others will be added. I see this as a natural lifecycle and adding a
language does not obey (compared to other features) that we need to keep
a SemVer promise. Otherwise if people "miss" languages after removal
they can engage and add them again.
I think the current policy is good enough to ensure that translations
are not flipping with every minor release. But the rules define and will
have a general stability.
Therefore my Opinion is like Shahar a A=-1 but B=-0.5 - I would not
volunteer to be a sponsor for any strange guy coming along doing the
first PR. But I did offer for persons I know personally and I trust (HU
for Example Donat as well as Eloi which I met in Toronto and SF and
looking forward meeting him in Seattle again - nice relation and I am
proud that we have him (even if rare but) contributing).
As for the fear of Daniel I would see the same but also here I'd only
merge as sponsor if there is a profiliant native speaker available for
proof reading. As translation sponsor I would not merge any PR from
somebody I don't know or who never contributed. Engaged Translators
should be the ones helping in the peer review.
Therefore: I am C==A+B also looking forward for Catalan. And all other
variants where people are engaged and there are users who benefit from
it. I do not know Klingon (yet).
Jens
On 29.08.25 19:25, Daniel Standish wrote:
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
