Please remove the following email address: e.little...@gmail.com On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 5:15 PM Debian Bug Tracking System < ow...@bugs.debian.org> wrote:
> Your message dated Sun, 10 Sep 2023 14:11:41 -0700 > with message-id <87fs3lvilu....@hope.eyrie.org> > and subject line Re: Bug#917995: debian-policy: drop section 1.6 > Translations > has caused the Debian Bug report #917995, > regarding debian-policy: drop section 1.6 Translations > to be marked as done. > > This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. > If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the > Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. > > (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this > message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system > misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org > immediately.) > > > -- > 917995: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=917995 > Debian Bug Tracking System > Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ansgar Burchardt <ans...@debian.org> > To: Debian Bug Tracking System <sub...@bugs.debian.org> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 12:29:50 +0900 > Subject: debian-policy: drop section 1.6 Translations > Package: debian-policy > Version: 4.3.0.1 > Severity: normal > > Hi, > > I hereby propose to drop section 1.6 Translations and the following > sentence: "When translations of this document into languages other > than English disagree with the English text, the English text takes > precedence." > > If it is wrongly translated, then the English text probably isn't > clear enough (otherwise the translation would have the same meaning) > and would need to be clarified anyway to avoid being ambigious. Even > if not, the same process can be used to clarify the meaning of > non-English versions. > > There should be no need to put one language over others. > > Ansgar > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> > To: Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> > Cc: Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name>, 917995-d...@bugs.debian.org > Bcc: > Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 14:11:41 -0700 > Subject: Re: Bug#917995: debian-policy: drop section 1.6 Translations > Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > > Sean Whitton writes: > > >> I'm still inclined to prioritise unblocking people, by giving them a > >> way of resolving disputes between versions of the document without > >> asking on d-policy, but let's see. > > > It is the English text of policy that is reviewed and discussed and > > approved here. That is, the "untranslated" policy. It is quite wrong > > to say that the English text is not special. If it is desired to > > provide normative text in other language(s), that text should be > > discussed and approved in the same way as the English text. > > > Even so, that leaves open the possibility for multiple normative texts > > which disagree. (This has occurred frequently in international treaties > > with multiple normative texts and is a source of trouble.) > > I agree with Ian's argument here. > > Policy doesn't have a lot of resources for writing text, let alone > translating text, so realistically our translations are unlikely to be > comprehensive and will probably be the work of one or two people. I think > they may be very useful because Policy is a complicated text and reading > complicated descriptions in one's non-native language is difficult, but in > practice I expect the most common use of the translations will be in > conjuction with the English text. > > The English text is where nearly all of the work and review goes at > present, so it is special in that sense. The delegated Policy Editors > only maintain the English text. It's common in that situation to point > that out in the document. > > I hear Jonathan's point that treating Policy as a standards document is > perhaps a triumph of hope over experience, but in practice it is used to > settle disagreements in Debian, however imperfectly, and in those cases > the English text is the one that's been peer-reviewed and is more likely > to resolve the disagreement. > > Given all of this, and the general lack of consensus in this bug for > making a change, I'm going to close this bug. > > -- > Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
