On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Petr Kovar <pmko...@gnome.org> wrote: > [...] > Moreover, there's no way translators or translation teams on > Tx.net can communicate with each other, as the Tx.net translation team > approach is based on a per-project basis. That's quite unfortunate in my > opinion. Translators and different projects translation teams need to share > knowledge, guidelines, terminology, best practices, etc. > > I hope though that the above can be changed in the future and that Tx.net > will be more like Damned Lies in this regard.
Yes, this is something that will be supported in the future. It makes total sense: a software project might want to outsource all its translation user management to another project. But I'd classify this as "project X wants to trust project Y for its translation user management" rather than "collaboration" etc. The bottom line is that sharing and everything happens on mailing lists, not the tools themselves (for now). I hope we can reach a point where the tools will allow a much better collaboration, sharing data, translation memories, etc. > but having like > zillions of different translation teams on one l10n platform isn't aiming to > accomplish these important goals. Indeed, but it'd be fair to notice that neither will one translation team on a zillion L10n platforms. I'll proceed to give some food for thought, 'cause I've been thinking about these bits for a few years now, both as a L10n engineer, as a Fedora Board member, and a project maintainer myself. The biggest Q we need to ask ourselves here is the following: how much does GNOME Translation Project want to insist on being considered the "upstream" for some projects? How is GTP more upstream to Solang than eg. Freedesktop, Fedora or Ubuntu? How much are we willing to tip the scale towards "tightly controlled translation quality" against "cross-project collaboration"? Relaxing this constraint (We are Upstream. We control things) will definitely have some short-term effect on quality. It always happens when you open up things and choose Freedom over Control. You open your door and invite more people. You get more opinions and contributions. But consider this: it could have a positive effect on quantity, and, if we really believe the core open-source mantra of "more eyes = more easy to catch bugs", it could even IMPROVE quality. Good tools and circles of trust can maintain quality. This argument came up with system-config-printer on Fedora. Considering Fedora the upstream for this project doesn't make any sense because translators from a bunch of other communities (including Ubuntu) want to contribute. Insisting too much would lead to a Cathedral (Subversion-like) translation effort. On the other hand, pushing the power to the developer himself being the Upstream (no matter where he's hosted) leads to a Bazaar (Git-like) approach. I'm the developer of Transifex, right? I'd so much love if the GNOME translators could contribute to the translations of Tx itself, and the same for the Fedora and Moblin folks. It'd be a pity if every single of these communities was putting a requirement for their involvement the classic "Our way or the high way". Insisting too much on upstream makes websites like Github (purely Bazaar) seem like they'll never work. But they do. Amazingly well. I know I put too much depth here, but I think some perspective on the topic might do good. -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