On 8/16/06, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The funny thing is that people can subvert those kinds of checks if they simply have access to two different systems and they can simply "review" and "approve" (in one) things they "owned" (in the other one).
As opposed to the current DDTS which will accept anything form anyone without review? I'm all for putting in useful checks but it people want to be silly we can't really stop them.
1.- Not have the application decide how the language team reviews or approves translations (the current system does not cooperate well with one-man language teams). That method has to be decided per-team. Some teams might want people to be able to translate and approve inmediately, others might want a tigher review process (one or more people check out the translation). This could be even be different per translation (more reviews needed for higher priority / higher visibility translations than optional translations).
Each language has a custom setup right now. That's why I'm trying to get feedback on how people want it. I'm open to most suggestions, even passwords (I had it setup at one point but it's hard to test a system if people need to sign up).
2.- Provide per-user authentication and have a coordinator be able to set up a "confidence" level per translator (think of it as a rating, your don't review as often thinks from people that you have been working for years and you are confident in their skills as opposed to new people that have not proved themselves).
I thought of all sorts of schemes but I get stuck on a few small points: 1. What is the goal of these checks? 2. How perfect do translations need to be? Once we've got a decent answer to that we're done. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/
