On May 18, 2012, at 8:44 AM, Donald Whytock wrote: > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:38 AM, drew <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 11:29 -0400, Donald Whytock wrote: >>> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:20 AM, drew <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 11:08 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: >>>>> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 10:55 AM, drew jensen >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Recently there has been some discussion on the projects private ML >>>>>> regarding issues about native language groups and how best to support >>>>>> work groups which will by definition be somewhat circumscribed from the >>>>>> whole by virtue of language without losing the cohesion of a single >>>>>> project focus. >>>>>> >>>>>> I invite others pick that up here: >>>>> >>>>> What we do currently: >>>>> >>>>> 1) One big ooo-dev list >>>>> >>>>> 2) Some NL-specific lists. I don't subscribe to them at all, so >>>>> others would need to say how they are currently being used. >>>>> >>>>> 3) We have some emerging procedures for how volunteers can contribute >>>>> to product and website translations, but this information is scattered >>>>> in old ooo-dev posts and not easy to find. >>>>> >>>>> I wonder whether a good step forward might be to document on our >>>>> project website (http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg) the >>>>> procedures from #3 above. Then when we have a new volunteer on the >>>>> list we can point them to this information. This could expand to >>>>> other NL topics such as local marketing/events, trademark usage, NL >>>>> mailing lists, etc. >>>> >>>> hmm I would say, eventually yes, but if you mean - one giant dev list is >>>> already the decided outcome and so just document it as such, then I'd >>>> say no, not yet. >>>> >>>> I do not think this project is such that one can just say 'the Apache >>>> way' and be done with it - there is about to be a new Apache way me >>>> thinks. >>>> >>>> For instance I wonder how much experience there is in the Apache Way >>>> with a project which will need to look local in certain places around >>>> the world (China, Vietnam, Brasil, Venzuela and Bolivia come to mind >>>> quickly) as without this the local government support goes away and >>>> without that so does the local project - or at least that is my >>>> understanding of the situation in those places. I use that only to say >>>> that IMO this needs some real thought as to how this project is going to >>>> build itself. >>> >>> Has any thought been given to reaching out to language-teaching >>> communities at colleges for translation assistance? This would do >>> dual duty of getting help with translation of top-level site >>> information and spreading the word about AOO. There may be teachers >>> who would consider translation of NL pages extra-credit work for >>> students. >> >> Sounds like a great idea, if, the reason for this project is simply to >> scratch an itch - in other words if the goal here is to build the >> software and then not really concern ourselves with who uses it, because >> that is outside of the scope of this project and left to others to do >> (and a valid position, perhaps) then I'd say sure, that sounds like one >> good avenue to work on. In that scenario of the reason for the project >> we don't care really about building local teams, only in the work >> product. >> >> //drew > > I was thinking of a bootstrap. At the moment, if all the policies and > procedures and process descriptions are in English, then all your NL > communities must start with a person who's capable in both English and > the target language. If, on the other hand, you mass-produce > translations of those policies and procedures and process descriptions > into multiple languages and put them on NL root pages, you've widened > your community-founding pool. > > Yes, scratching an itch. And prying open a door.
I like your idea here. It can be done. If the translation is bad then a Native Language speaker might scratch their itch for better language. Regards, Dave > > Don
