Daniel said it. The reason for a NL-EN is to provide grassroot support and implementation for the global strategy in EN locales. Other native-langs are very busy organizing and implementing local projects to a degree that just doesn't happen in english speaking countries, mostly because we use the same lists for global strategy and local implementation. The reason for a NL-EN project is so that there can be a place for talk about the best way to spread openoffice.org throughout english speaking countries that is more specialized than the place where we talk about global strategy.-R
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:13:53 -0500, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Louis Suarez-Potts wrote: > > > I tend to agree with Vitor here but am open to persuasion to the > > contrary. Put another way, what would be the raison d'�tre of EN NLC? > > I figure it should be the same as all the other NL projects. In general, > the NL projects deal with local, grass roots efforts. And other projects > like marketing and documentation deal with global issues (e.g. SMP). > > Right now English doesn't have that grass roots side. Instead, some of > that falls on lists that are supposed to be "global" lists, and some of it > just doesn't happen at all. I think it'd be good to have a separation > between local efforts, and global policy, for English. > > I think an English NL would go a long way towards improving parity between > languages. Right now OOo seems to be divided into "English" and "everyone > else". That's sad. Having an English NL is a good first step towards > language parity. > > In addition, there are all the excellent reasons listed by Charles, which > I don't need to repeat here. > > > But wouldn't that just entrench the French privilege? What I am > > concerned with is, as I stated, that an EN project would, unless sharply > > circumscribed, solidify its privilege. > > I think it would help put them all on the same level, with the same > rules. By separating "local English" issues from "global OOo" issues. > > > How would you envision this process? Say that there is the PR for 2.0 > > beta to be written (hint hint) and it's written initially in English. > > Okay, it was written by the [EMAIL PROTECTED] group, not part of the EN > > project. So, they don't have to translate it or anything. They do have > > to get the word out to the press. But why does that require a separate > > project? > > Okay, you listed one instance, where an english NL project does not have > to do as much work as others. That does not, in any way, reduce the value > of an English NL project. > > If the French government switches to OOo, the French NL project doesn't > need to translate anything. Does that make the French NL project less > valuable? > > > > Nor is marketing the only point of NLC. In fact, it's not even the > > primary point. The chief point is "resources and information" and also > > "localization." So, let's turn to resources and information, and guess > > what: they are already in English. We also don't have to worry about > > localization. > > All you just said is that Level 1 stuff is already done. Fine, that just > means that English NL goes straight to Level 2. > > > But let's go back to resources. There are documents that are written > > in, say, Serbian, that ought to be in other languages. Few native > > speakers of English in this project, I daresay, also speak or read > > Serbian. They ought to, of course, but they don't. So, it's up to > > Serbian project to translate them to English. What then is the EN NLC > > doing wrt to Documentation? Or would the Serbian (or French or > > German...) speakers be part of the English NLC? > > Why would this be any different as it is between any two NL projects. If > French NL has a good document, and German NL likes it, they can translate > it. English NL would get the exact same rules as everyone else. > > It's like this: > > Project A NL has a cool document. > Project B NL would like a copy. > Someone who speaks enough A and B makes a translation. > > It doesn't matter if A or B is "English". Why should it? > > > QA? Well, it's pretty automatic, as right now the EN builds are the > > "default" builds. That could change, of course, but it's not likely. > > We have two default builds, German and English. Do you also oppose a > German NL project? > > > So, I am unpersuaded. Maybe I'm missing something. What is to be gained > > by having an EN NLC? And, how is the implicit privilege of English to > > be limited, should an EN NLC be created? > > By there being an English NL, the project falls under the same rules as > all the NL projects. No one gets special priviledges, no special limits. > More parity. > > Cheers, > -- > Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, > Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. > http://oooauthors.org | > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- _________________________ Ryan Singer Editor In Chief, The Sentinel http://foothillsentinel.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
