Hi Jun, *, On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 4:16 AM Jun Nogata <[email protected]> wrote: > > I object. This concerns the issue of authorization.
I think that is jumping the gun, but thank you nevertheless for sharing that bit of information. > TDF and the global community recognize the LibreOffice Japanese Team > as the Japanese LibreOffice community, but that is a major mistake. > They are just a group of people who are merely using the LibreOffice > name. I have to admit this is the first time I hear of such a divide, so I'm quite surprised that the translators feel left out, but I'm also not aware where TDF would only count certain people as Japanese Community but not others - if you encounter such cases it is certainly not intentional and the wording can be fixed. > The people calling themselves the LibreOffice Japanese Team have done > almost no actual work. Ah, stuff like that can always happen, and people work in different areas, some do translation, some do QA, some do "advocating", some just help out other users in forums, similar, so I don't think it is easy to draw the line of "doing no work" when only looking at the code or translation contributions. > Fed up with this, I left the team and have been > working independently. I'm also supporting other Japanese translation > volunteers. You can see this for yourself by looking at the work logs. > > https://translations.documentfoundation.org/user/nogajun/#activity > https://translations.documentfoundation.org/user/enoki/#activity > https://translations.documentfoundation.org/user/jm/#activity Not sure what this is meant to show - of course shows that you did the majority of the changes, but the other two also did changes, one more consistently than the other but still doing something, and all with the same privileges. > Will granting authority solely to such people really improve the > quality of translations? The "language leads" are rather inofficial rules, the only case where that matters is when a new volunteer shows up and asks for permissions on weblate, then the traditional language leads are asked for input/whether it is OK to grant the privileges right away or whether they prefer to be supervised/onboarded first before granting them rights to do changes directly. And of course that is also not a fixed assignment, the rules/members are mostly still from the old pootle days and very little changes were done in this regard, but if a previous "language lead" becomes inactive or leaves the project of course other people can step up. It frequently also isn't a single person, but two or three. In general translations are done by very few people per language, and once the translation is nearly complete, more often than not it is just one or two people left maintaining the translation on a regular basis. > I'm in favor of using AI for translation and quality checks, but we > should give the issue of granting authority a little more thought. I'm certainly also in favor of adding more quality checks, but as written in the other mail I don't really see a way to use AI for that, regardless of who can use it or not - ideally those checks then don't need to be tied to any specific user, but just be integrated into weblate itself so there isn't really a question of authority/no more than there is now. ciao Christian -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/l10n/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
