On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 7:43 AM Lucien Gentis <lucien.gen...@univ-lorraine.fr> wrote: > > I think this topic becomes confusing because too much "nested". > > So In short, Nick Kew suggested to simplify the review process in these > terms : > > "I wonder if the review process might be a bit over-bureaucratic for a > language where > translators are thin on the ground? Perhaps we could accept unreviewed > translations > with a disclaimer advising readers of the fact (like the > "not-up-to-date" warnings) and calling for review?" > > And I answer : > > I don't like this solution but things have to forward ... > > However I see some problems : > > --- How will people report an error they have detected in an unreviewed > translated document ? (mailing list, Q/A at the bottom of the document,...)
If we had a disclaimer we could include this info. I suggest bugzilla is simplest. But I think if it is something more than cosmetic an interested user has lots of options even without explicit guidance. > > --- If someone says "This sentence should rather be translated so ...", > and anotherone says "I don't agree, it should rather be translated so > ...", how can we decide who is right. ? > > (errors are not only typos, they can also affect the semantic) To me it is unlikely anyone shows up to complain much less that the origina/any other author is around to read the complaint. Even if this does happen they have to actually disagree for it to be a problem. If the person complaining is the only one around w/ that language skill, we can point them at the translation process. > --- At what moment can we say a translated document is considered as > reviewed, so we can delete the disclaimer ? If someone did show up with minor updates we could consider it effectively reviewed? Or we could solicit such a review in the disclaimer. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscr...@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: docs-h...@httpd.apache.org
