On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Walter Bender <[email protected]> wrote:
> Adam and the SFC may think these funds are 100% fungible, but I think we > have an ethical obligation towards the goals of the proposal, which Chris > has nicely summarized. > Indeed, that's precisely what SFConservancy.org explained...Scalia's "original intent" and "spirit of the original proposal" etc notwithstanding: as Walter has explained in the past, the spirit of the $120,000 TripAdvisor Grant was to have 50% dedicated to Turtle Art and 50% dedicated to translation -- but adjustments can be made en route where prudent decision-making requires it. > regards. > > -walter > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Chris Leonard <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Laura Vargas <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Specific info that would help, includes: >> > >> > - Grant Time frame >> > - Is there a Max- Min Budget / Project / Language >> > - Are there activities/projects/languages restrictions >> > - Are there fixed rates for translators >> > - Are there fixed rates for logics roles >> > - Required Documentation >> > - And any other relevant information to help comunity members formulate >> > their translations projects within this logic. >> >> Laura, >> >> I do not believe such details would be contained in the grant itself, >> but I must admit that I don't think I ever asked for or saw the >> TripAdvisor grant paperwork. Chances are it is not very informative. >> >> What I think is perhaps most relevant to your request for information >> is the attached document which is a template that was developed by the >> SFC for the purpose of enabling L10n proposals to be made and >> definitively approved for payment by our fiscal sponsor. This is >> really where the "rubber meets the road" (a car enthusiast's term for >> where the action is or where things actually happen). Read the >> attached, I think you'll get the general flavor. >> >> To your detailed questions I will try to provide a little more color, >> noting that while I am not a SLOB any more, and so only speak for >> myself, but I have been engaged in the L10n/i18n community in various >> capacities for a while. >> >> > - Grant Time frame >> >> I think the timeline in the attached document is one year, that is not >> so much to restrict a successful and productive project from going >> forward longer than that by mutual agreement, but to protect >> SugarLabs/SFC from a non-performing contractor so the undispensed >> funds might be uncommitted and reallocated elsewhere on a timely >> basis, if needed. >> >> > - Is there a Max- Min Budget / Project / Language >> >> No Min that I know of, but you'd have to ask, I don't think this >> should be treated as a "petty cash" fund. Max is set by funds >> available and approval received. Project and Language to be described >> in the Proposal. >> >> > - Are there activities/projects/languages restrictions >> >> So far the only executed (or proposed and un-executed) agreements were >> for work on L10n on Sugar-related strings on our Pootle instance, so >> we could track deliverables easily. >> >> At one point there was discussion of payment for development new >> needed glibc locales committed upstream (that is a requirement for >> Sugar to use the language), but that came after I had committed the >> ayc_PE, quz-PE, quy_PE, niu_NU, niu_NZ locales, split the pap_AN >> locale into pap_CW and pap_AW, rework of ht_HT, etc., etc.so there was >> no executed agreement, just discussion in principle. I wouldn't >> morally oppose recompense for finally committing to glibc the agr_PE >> draft locale that I sent to Sebastian for testing (thanks for the >> improvements, and yes we will get it into glibc in due time), but I >> haven't pushed to formalize any paperwork, so there isn't any to >> share. >> >> > - Are there fixed rates for translators >> >> Not really, expectation would be averaging roughly at current internet >> published rates (or somewhat better for the rarer indigenous >> languages), maybe something in the 15-30 cent/word range, but >> milestone based, not piece-work. I think that is an important point >> to keep in mind. >> >> > - Are there fixed rates for logics roles >> >> Nothing specified, propose something and justify it to the SLOBS/SFC. >> I've drawn no remuneration for serving in an oversight capacity (yes >> the strings came in, yes they LOOK like the language requested, yes >> they pass error checks, etc.).. Again, I think the desire is to be >> milestone-based, not hourly rates. >> >> > - Required Documentation >> >> Besides a fully negotiated/approved proposal and executed version of >> the attached template adjusted accordingly, there is also a small one >> page copyright assignment document needed from each contributor, Just >> detail stuff, I could look for a copy of that somewhere, but it is not >> interesting or particularly negotiable, just a pro forma thing. >> >> > - And any other relevant information to help comunity members formulate >> > their translations projects within this logic. >> >> I'm striking out on my own here, but I don't think we want to pay for >> things that volunteers will do if we are doing our job as a project. >> Payment should be reserved for areas where there are substantial >> barriers that could be overcome with just a little grease on the >> wheels. What do I mean by this? I would not want to see us pay for >> Spanish or French strings, but I might be very happy to hear that the >> SLOBS have dedicated funds to speed up Awajun or start Shipibo-Conibo >> L10n (if proposed). >> >> To a certain extent, part of that calculation also includes a "target >> audience" of users waiting and people willing to get the work to them >> in already being in pace (e.g. Peruvian and Mexican indigenous >> languages even potentially smaller ones, the more widely used native >> languages of Oceania and Africa (e.g. Madaqascar), Haitian Kreyol, >> etc., might be good investments whereas Klingon or Esperanto might >> not). That increases the potential for realizable impact. I >> personally think new glibc development passes this test by virtue of >> being a one-time thing that has potentially global impact wherever >> Linux is used, as well as being a requirement for Sugar's i18n/L10n >> process. >> >> Anyway, those are my own thoughts on the matter and I think they are >> pretty reasonable, but it up to the SLOBs to make such calls on a >> case-by-case basis. >> >> cjl >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SLOBs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs >> >> > > > -- > Walter Bender > Sugar Labs > http://www.sugarlabs.org > <http://www.sugarlabs.org> > > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > -- > <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel> > <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel> > Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @ > <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel>http://unleashkids.org ! >
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
