Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
2012/3/11 Gavin McDonald ga...@16degrees.com.au: -Original Message- From: Paolo Pozzan [mailto:pa...@z2z.it] Sent: Sunday, 11 March 2012 7:02 AM To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server Il 09/03/2012 22:22, Rob Weir ha scritto: On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Michael Bauerf...@akerbeltz.org wrote: [cut] 2) Allow account creating as on other Pootle servers without any hoops to jump through other than the usual signup process. In essence, handle Pootle and l10n as it was handled before. Most of us are not familiar with how it was handled before, so it is good to discuss the details, so we all understand it. Right now it is configured so all Apache committers can login and have review and commit rights. Non-logged in users (everyone else) can view, suggest and submit translations. It's not useful to give causal contributors write access to translations: they usually don't know what writing style to follow and don't know the correct terminology. This will only mess up things or give more work to do to the translators. Please don't let submit rights to non-logged users. In your mind, what do you think 'submit rights' mean? I mean the right to push the submit button of the pootle interface when trying to modify a string. This leads to overwriting the previous translation. To me it means submit a translation for approval by a committer, without such approval it does nothing and harms nothing. Why are you against such actions whilst the rest of the people in this thread are trying to open up access even more? You are talking about the suggest feature (and button). Right now anybody can overwrite the translations without logging in at all. I am favorable to open up access but only to translators, not everyone. Paolo
Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
Opening up the editing of strings for all does not seem like a good idea. We also need the translators to be properly identified in order to be able to track translations to their original contributors. Back in the good old days, the Brazilian community organized the translation in a tree structure where volunteers translated the strings in the PO files that would be sent to reviewers for approval before being uploaded to the source code tree. The use of tools such as POEdit was tedious and there was a long learning curve for new users. Pootle is a much friendlier interface where community volunteers can quickly contribute with suggestions, as it is. A workable model could be deployed in such a way where reviewers would have write access to the server in order to accept or reject translations suggested by the community. This would keep the group of authorized users at a manageable size while not preventing the community at large from contributing with their translations. Local translation mailing lists could be used to identify most of the active volunteers by asking them to subscribe to the list in order to receive credit for their work. Most of the community in Brazil is made up of non-programmers and being able to recognize volunteer participation from these non-techs would be a great help in restarting the community. 2012/3/12 Paolo Pozzan pa...@z2z.it 2012/3/11 Gavin McDonald ga...@16degrees.com.au: -Original Message- From: Paolo Pozzan [mailto:pa...@z2z.it] Sent: Sunday, 11 March 2012 7:02 AM To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server Il 09/03/2012 22:22, Rob Weir ha scritto: On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Michael Bauerf...@akerbeltz.org wrote: [cut] 2) Allow account creating as on other Pootle servers without any hoops to jump through other than the usual signup process. In essence, handle Pootle and l10n as it was handled before. Most of us are not familiar with how it was handled before, so it is good to discuss the details, so we all understand it. Right now it is configured so all Apache committers can login and have review and commit rights. Non-logged in users (everyone else) can view, suggest and submit translations. It's not useful to give causal contributors write access to translations: they usually don't know what writing style to follow and don't know the correct terminology. This will only mess up things or give more work to do to the translators. Please don't let submit rights to non-logged users. In your mind, what do you think 'submit rights' mean? I mean the right to push the submit button of the pootle interface when trying to modify a string. This leads to overwriting the previous translation. To me it means submit a translation for approval by a committer, without such approval it does nothing and harms nothing. Why are you against such actions whilst the rest of the people in this thread are trying to open up access even more? You are talking about the suggest feature (and button). Right now anybody can overwrite the translations without logging in at all. I am favorable to open up access but only to translators, not everyone. Paolo -- Roberto Salomon http://notaslivres.webhop.net
Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
Hi 2012/3/10 Paolo Pozzan pa...@z2z.it: I think it can work. Better yet: back in OOo days various teams were able to choose between pootle or direct SDF submission (as Claudio said). Maybe in this phase of reorganization it would be helpful for the teams to choose their preferred method. Is a good idea, Paolo! +1 And more that it, i think that a next step for our next release, IMHO, is to see how we use PO or XLIFF directly, removing the SDF layer. And, about the reorganization, i believe that understanding of tools and workflow is a good thing, so i am also studing Pootle and other tools, like Jürgen. Bests, Claudio
Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
09/03/2012 4:52, sgrìobh filh...@gmail.com: 1) Really Pootle can be useful and we can win produtivity with it, BUT is possible work with other tools too; Yes, no one is denying that. But as a base it's useful. I don't usually translate within Pootle myself, I export the po and work in Virtaal and the commit the file back. 2) This instance of Pootle, without a minimum of one person per language as committer, is unusable. It's not even that. Currently the model is Anyone is a suggester, heaven knows who is a committer. That's one of the things I've been criticizing, AFAIK, there is currently no such thing as a locale leader/committer. Michael
Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Michael Bauer f...@akerbeltz.org wrote: 09/03/2012 21:22, sgrìobh Rob Weir: OK. I think we have a volunteer project admin for the AOO Pootle project. That is Raphael, right? As an l10n admin you mean? Which would be fine. However, a single person can't realistically be admin to oversee all language projects from a linguistic point of view. While many of us can handle more than one language, there's no one that can handle all of them. Most of us are not familiar with how it was handled before, so it is good to discuss the details, so we all understand it. Which is why I suggested that the interested/involved parties sign up for accounts over on the LibreOffice Pootle server just so they see how it works. I *don't know* all the technicalities of how Pootle works either. I am more interested in a high level understanding of the roles, etc. The technical details of the exotic is something else, how we extract strings from the build, using different tools and formats, convert them to SDF, then to PO, then translate, then back to PO and then to SDF and to resource files. Right now it is configured so all Apache committers can login and have review and commit rights. Non-logged in users (everyone else) can view, suggest and submit translations. What are we missing? Would it work, for example, if the translation leads become Apache committers? This is all making localization of OO unnecessarily complicated. Looking at it another way - is there a way of separating the signup and rights management of Pootle on Apache from the rest of the rights management on Apache? All the necessary localization tools and processes are there within Pootle. The only problem we're facing is that the only signup and rights management path at the moment is via the standard Apache signup etc. We need to make the two separate. Certainly Apache projects understand the need for there to be contributors as well as committers. We have many systems where anyone, even on their first day in the project, can contribute. For example, the wiki, the forums,submitting patches for the website, even patches for the code. None of these require being a committer. However, submitting strings for localization is something that requires more consideration than just updating a wiki page. These strings eventually become part of Apache releases, so we need to make sure these contributions are given more attention. At the very least I think they require: 1) We know who made the contribution. This is good from IP perspective, but also from a community perspective. Contributors should get recognition for their work. If they can only contribute anonymously, this is a problem. It also hinders the PMC from recognizing active contributors and offering them committer rights. 2) We need the translations to be contributed under the Apache 2.0 license. This does not necessarily require a signed iCLA. It could be done with a proper notice on the Pootle server. 3) We need some mechanism for a Committer to review and commit contributed translations. This doesn't necessarily mean that we must have committers that can read 110 different languages. But it does mean that we need a process that a Committer can follow to ensure that the translations are of sufficient quality to be included in a release. An example of such a process could be: a) Committer verifies the origin of the translation strings,e.g., they came from Pootle server from known contributors. b) Committer verifies the integrity and completeness of the translation. In other words, whatever can be checked by tools without understanding the underlying language. If an automated smoke test can be executed to verify that the strings don't break the build, then we should do that as well at this stage. c) At this point the language strings are considered candidates and the committer can check the strings into SVN. They are included in dev snapshots as candidate translations, but they are not yet included in releases yet. d) We have some sort of community review procedure. We rely on native speakers to test the translations. We probably need a proactive RTC rather than lazy consensus. So maybe we just wait until we get 3 +1's votes from volunteers who have tested the translation. When we have that, then the translation becomes approved rather than candidate. Would something like the above work? In this process there is no formal leader for a given language. But in practice the leader emerges from their actions and the recognition that others working on that language give them. It is not something we (the AOO PMC) need to appoint. But we would need one more Committers to volunteer to lead the process of taking translation candidates through this process. I've done you some screenshots of what a locale admin account looks like in Pootle (http://www.akerbeltz.org/Process.doc) The Overview (page 1) is, well, the
Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
Hi Rob, My comments are meant to supplement and enhance your thoughts on measuring merit. On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Michael Bauer f...@akerbeltz.org wrote: 09/03/2012 21:22, sgrìobh Rob Weir: OK. I think we have a volunteer project admin for the AOO Pootle project. That is Raphael, right? As an l10n admin you mean? Which would be fine. However, a single person can't realistically be admin to oversee all language projects from a linguistic point of view. While many of us can handle more than one language, there's no one that can handle all of them. Most of us are not familiar with how it was handled before, so it is good to discuss the details, so we all understand it. Which is why I suggested that the interested/involved parties sign up for accounts over on the LibreOffice Pootle server just so they see how it works. I *don't know* all the technicalities of how Pootle works either. I am more interested in a high level understanding of the roles, etc. The technical details of the exotic is something else, how we extract strings from the build, using different tools and formats, convert them to SDF, then to PO, then translate, then back to PO and then to SDF and to resource files. Right now it is configured so all Apache committers can login and have review and commit rights. Non-logged in users (everyone else) can view, suggest and submit translations. What are we missing? Would it work, for example, if the translation leads become Apache committers? This is all making localization of OO unnecessarily complicated. Looking at it another way - is there a way of separating the signup and rights management of Pootle on Apache from the rest of the rights management on Apache? All the necessary localization tools and processes are there within Pootle. The only problem we're facing is that the only signup and rights management path at the moment is via the standard Apache signup etc. We need to make the two separate. Certainly Apache projects understand the need for there to be contributors as well as committers. We have many systems where anyone, even on their first day in the project, can contribute. For example, the wiki, the forums,submitting patches for the website, even patches for the code. None of these require being a committer. However, submitting strings for localization is something that requires more consideration than just updating a wiki page. These strings eventually become part of Apache releases, so we need to make sure these contributions are given more attention. At the very least I think they require: 1) We know who made the contribution. This is good from IP perspective, but also from a community perspective. Contributors should get recognition for their work. If they can only contribute anonymously, this is a problem. It also hinders the PMC from recognizing active contributors and offering them committer rights. 2) We need the translations to be contributed under the Apache 2.0 license. This does not necessarily require a signed iCLA. It could be done with a proper notice on the Pootle server. 3) We need some mechanism for a Committer to review and commit contributed translations. This doesn't necessarily mean that we must have committers that can read 110 different languages. But it does mean that we need a process that a Committer can follow to ensure that the translations are of sufficient quality to be included in a release. An example of such a process could be: a) Committer verifies the origin of the translation strings,e.g., they came from Pootle server from known contributors. b) Committer verifies the integrity and completeness of the translation. In other words, whatever can be checked by tools without understanding the underlying language. If an automated smoke test can be executed to verify that the strings don't break the build, then we should do that as well at this stage. c) At this point the language strings are considered candidates and the committer can check the strings into SVN. They are included in dev snapshots as candidate translations, but they are not yet included in releases yet. d) We have some sort of community review procedure. We rely on native speakers to test the translations. We probably need a proactive RTC rather than lazy consensus. So maybe we just wait until we get 3 +1's votes from volunteers who have tested the translation. When we have that, then the translation becomes approved rather than candidate. Would something like the above work? In this process there is no formal leader for a given language. But in practice the leader emerges from their actions and the recognition that others working on that language give them. It is not something we (the AOO PMC) need to appoint. But we would need one more Committers to volunteer to lead the process of
Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Rob, My comments are meant to supplement and enhance your thoughts on measuring merit. On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Michael Bauer f...@akerbeltz.org wrote: 09/03/2012 21:22, sgrìobh Rob Weir: OK. I think we have a volunteer project admin for the AOO Pootle project. That is Raphael, right? As an l10n admin you mean? Which would be fine. However, a single person can't realistically be admin to oversee all language projects from a linguistic point of view. While many of us can handle more than one language, there's no one that can handle all of them. Most of us are not familiar with how it was handled before, so it is good to discuss the details, so we all understand it. Which is why I suggested that the interested/involved parties sign up for accounts over on the LibreOffice Pootle server just so they see how it works. I *don't know* all the technicalities of how Pootle works either. I am more interested in a high level understanding of the roles, etc. The technical details of the exotic is something else, how we extract strings from the build, using different tools and formats, convert them to SDF, then to PO, then translate, then back to PO and then to SDF and to resource files. Right now it is configured so all Apache committers can login and have review and commit rights. Non-logged in users (everyone else) can view, suggest and submit translations. What are we missing? Would it work, for example, if the translation leads become Apache committers? This is all making localization of OO unnecessarily complicated. Looking at it another way - is there a way of separating the signup and rights management of Pootle on Apache from the rest of the rights management on Apache? All the necessary localization tools and processes are there within Pootle. The only problem we're facing is that the only signup and rights management path at the moment is via the standard Apache signup etc. We need to make the two separate. Certainly Apache projects understand the need for there to be contributors as well as committers. We have many systems where anyone, even on their first day in the project, can contribute. For example, the wiki, the forums,submitting patches for the website, even patches for the code. None of these require being a committer. However, submitting strings for localization is something that requires more consideration than just updating a wiki page. These strings eventually become part of Apache releases, so we need to make sure these contributions are given more attention. At the very least I think they require: 1) We know who made the contribution. This is good from IP perspective, but also from a community perspective. Contributors should get recognition for their work. If they can only contribute anonymously, this is a problem. It also hinders the PMC from recognizing active contributors and offering them committer rights. 2) We need the translations to be contributed under the Apache 2.0 license. This does not necessarily require a signed iCLA. It could be done with a proper notice on the Pootle server. 3) We need some mechanism for a Committer to review and commit contributed translations. This doesn't necessarily mean that we must have committers that can read 110 different languages. But it does mean that we need a process that a Committer can follow to ensure that the translations are of sufficient quality to be included in a release. An example of such a process could be: a) Committer verifies the origin of the translation strings,e.g., they came from Pootle server from known contributors. b) Committer verifies the integrity and completeness of the translation. In other words, whatever can be checked by tools without understanding the underlying language. If an automated smoke test can be executed to verify that the strings don't break the build, then we should do that as well at this stage. c) At this point the language strings are considered candidates and the committer can check the strings into SVN. They are included in dev snapshots as candidate translations, but they are not yet included in releases yet. d) We have some sort of community review procedure. We rely on native speakers to test the translations. We probably need a proactive RTC rather than lazy consensus. So maybe we just wait until we get 3 +1's votes from volunteers who have tested the translation. When we have that, then the translation becomes approved rather than candidate. Would something like the above work? In this process there is no formal leader for a given language. But in practice the leader emerges from their actions and the recognition that others working on that language give them. It is not something we (the AOO PMC) need to appoint. But we would need one
Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
10/03/2012 08:45 sgrìobh Rob Weir 1) We know who made the contribution. This is good from IP perspective, but also from a community perspective. Contributors should get recognition for their work. If they can only contribute anonymously, this is a problem. It also hinders the PMC from recognizing active contributors and offering them committer rights. shrugs that never seems to have been a problem previously. There usually are many more translators, some who contribute only one or two translations, than can be listed. 3) We need some mechanism for a Committer to review and commit contributed translations. This doesn't necessarily mean that we must have committers that can read 110 different languages. But it does mean that we need a process that a Committer can follow to ensure that the translations are of sufficient quality to be included in a release. An example of such a process could be: a) Committer verifies the origin of the translation strings,e.g., they came from Pootle server from known contributors. That doesn't ensure anything. I could regularly contribue stuff that looks very much like, say, Navajo but no one has any way of knowing if it's good or bad if I'm the only one providing Navajo transalations. c) At this point the language strings are considered candidates and the committer can check the strings into SVN. They are included in dev snapshots as candidate translations, but they are not yet included in releases yet. That will result in very long delays cause you're in effect doing the same job twice and I can't see a language like Gaelic or Bambara being very high up anyone's list of priorities. d) We have some sort of community review procedure. We rely on native speakers to test the translations. And how do you identify native speakers? Especially for smaller languages, localization work is often done by fluent learners anyway, it's just the sociolinguistics of the small languages. We probably need a proactive RTC rather than lazy consensus. So maybe we just wait until we get 3 +1's votes from volunteers who have tested the translation. When we have that, then the translation becomes approved rather than candidate. Again, that dooms small languages. How many times do I need to repeat that with all the pushing in the world, small languages usually consist of a team of 1, maybe two. If I had to wait for 2+ votes on any Gaelic localization I've been involved in, I'd still be waiting for a release. Two years on, I have a team of two who will, if they have the time, install a pre-release and do some light testing and I already consider myself lucky having them. May I ask why you're trying so hard to change a model that worked reasonably well before? Michael
Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
On Mar 10, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: Hi Rob, My comments are meant to supplement and enhance your thoughts on measuring merit. On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Michael Bauer f...@akerbeltz.org wrote: 09/03/2012 21:22, sgrìobh Rob Weir: OK. I think we have a volunteer project admin for the AOO Pootle project. That is Raphael, right? As an l10n admin you mean? Which would be fine. However, a single person can't realistically be admin to oversee all language projects from a linguistic point of view. While many of us can handle more than one language, there's no one that can handle all of them. Most of us are not familiar with how it was handled before, so it is good to discuss the details, so we all understand it. Which is why I suggested that the interested/involved parties sign up for accounts over on the LibreOffice Pootle server just so they see how it works. I *don't know* all the technicalities of how Pootle works either. I am more interested in a high level understanding of the roles, etc. The technical details of the exotic is something else, how we extract strings from the build, using different tools and formats, convert them to SDF, then to PO, then translate, then back to PO and then to SDF and to resource files. Right now it is configured so all Apache committers can login and have review and commit rights. Non-logged in users (everyone else) can view, suggest and submit translations. What are we missing? Would it work, for example, if the translation leads become Apache committers? This is all making localization of OO unnecessarily complicated. Looking at it another way - is there a way of separating the signup and rights management of Pootle on Apache from the rest of the rights management on Apache? All the necessary localization tools and processes are there within Pootle. The only problem we're facing is that the only signup and rights management path at the moment is via the standard Apache signup etc. We need to make the two separate. Certainly Apache projects understand the need for there to be contributors as well as committers. We have many systems where anyone, even on their first day in the project, can contribute. For example, the wiki, the forums,submitting patches for the website, even patches for the code. None of these require being a committer. However, submitting strings for localization is something that requires more consideration than just updating a wiki page. These strings eventually become part of Apache releases, so we need to make sure these contributions are given more attention. At the very least I think they require: 1) We know who made the contribution. This is good from IP perspective, but also from a community perspective. Contributors should get recognition for their work. If they can only contribute anonymously, this is a problem. It also hinders the PMC from recognizing active contributors and offering them committer rights. 2) We need the translations to be contributed under the Apache 2.0 license. This does not necessarily require a signed iCLA. It could be done with a proper notice on the Pootle server. 3) We need some mechanism for a Committer to review and commit contributed translations. This doesn't necessarily mean that we must have committers that can read 110 different languages. But it does mean that we need a process that a Committer can follow to ensure that the translations are of sufficient quality to be included in a release. An example of such a process could be: a) Committer verifies the origin of the translation strings,e.g., they came from Pootle server from known contributors. b) Committer verifies the integrity and completeness of the translation. In other words, whatever can be checked by tools without understanding the underlying language. If an automated smoke test can be executed to verify that the strings don't break the build, then we should do that as well at this stage. c) At this point the language strings are considered candidates and the committer can check the strings into SVN. They are included in dev snapshots as candidate translations, but they are not yet included in releases yet. d) We have some sort of community review procedure. We rely on native speakers to test the translations. We probably need a proactive RTC rather than lazy consensus. So maybe we just wait until we get 3 +1's votes from volunteers who have tested the translation. When we have that, then the translation becomes approved rather than candidate. Would something like the above work? In this process there is no formal leader for a given language. But in practice the leader emerges from their actions and the recognition that others working on that language give them. It
Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Michael Bauer f...@akerbeltz.org wrote: 10/03/2012 08:45 sgrìobh Rob Weir 1) We know who made the contribution. This is good from IP perspective, but also from a community perspective. Contributors should get recognition for their work. If they can only contribute anonymously, this is a problem. It also hinders the PMC from recognizing active contributors and offering them committer rights. shrugs that never seems to have been a problem previously. There usually are many more translators, some who contribute only one or two translations, than can be listed. I think, as a policy, we should credit all translators, unless they wish to omitted. But from the IP perspective, I don't think we can be accepting anonymous (e..g, non-logged in users) submitting translations for inclusion into Apache releases. This is not a matter of review. It is a question of origin of the translations. For example, an anonymous user could accidentally and innocently contribute translations from LibreOffice, not knowing that the license is not compatible. But if we don't know who is actually doing the contributions, we have no easy way of contacting them to explain the issue. On the other hand, a translator might legitimately contribute their own translations to both projects. But if they are anonymous, we have no way of telling the difference between these two cases. 3) We need some mechanism for a Committer to review and commit contributed translations. This doesn't necessarily mean that we must have committers that can read 110 different languages. But it does mean that we need a process that a Committer can follow to ensure that the translations are of sufficient quality to be included in a release. An example of such a process could be: a) Committer verifies the origin of the translation strings,e.g., they came from Pootle server from known contributors. That doesn't ensure anything. I could regularly contribue stuff that looks very much like, say, Navajo but no one has any way of knowing if it's good or bad if I'm the only one providing Navajo transalations. That's why I suggested the committee review phase, described later. c) At this point the language strings are considered candidates and the committer can check the strings into SVN. They are included in dev snapshots as candidate translations, but they are not yet included in releases yet. That will result in very long delays cause you're in effect doing the same job twice and I can't see a language like Gaelic or Bambara being very high up anyone's list of priorities. Is it a duplicate to have developers do smoke tests and unit tests, and QA run formal tests and also have users report bugs during a beta release? Does it slow us down? Yes, of course this is redundant, duplicate effort. And it takes time. But it all goes toward improving the quality of what we deliver. So I make no apologies for review work. d) We have some sort of community review procedure. We rely on native speakers to test the translations. And how do you identify native speakers? Especially for smaller languages, localization work is often done by fluent learners anyway, it's just the sociolinguistics of the small languages. From users, I hope. Remember, even with widespread languages like Spanish we find errors. For example, the issue with reversed icon set names. This isn't a question of fluency. It is merely a fact that in knowledge work of any kind there is an error rate of 1-5%. This is true of coding, translating, even testing. We can't prevent it entirely. All we can do is account for it in the process. We probably need a proactive RTC rather than lazy consensus. So maybe we just wait until we get 3 +1's votes from volunteers who have tested the translation. When we have that, then the translation becomes approved rather than candidate. Again, that dooms small languages. How many times do I need to repeat that with all the pushing in the world, small languages usually consist of a team of 1, maybe two. If I had to wait for 2+ votes on any Gaelic localization I've been involved in, I'd still be waiting for a release. Two years on, I have a team of two who will, if they have the time, install a pre-release and do some light testing and I already consider myself lucky having them. That's fine. When Armin wrote the new SVG code, that was a team of one doing the coding. But we found others to help test the results. We might have only one person on the project who translate Gaelic, but I hope we can find 2-3 users who are willing to download a candidate language pack and give us feedback on it. I think it is part of the responsibility for a translator of less-used languages to find their own reviewers from the broader user community. May I ask why you're trying so hard to change a model that worked reasonably well before? Actually, I'm trying to find a solution that will make
Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
Il 09/03/2012 22:22, Rob Weir ha scritto: On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Michael Bauerf...@akerbeltz.org wrote: [cut] 2) Allow account creating as on other Pootle servers without any hoops to jump through other than the usual signup process. In essence, handle Pootle and l10n as it was handled before. Most of us are not familiar with how it was handled before, so it is good to discuss the details, so we all understand it. Right now it is configured so all Apache committers can login and have review and commit rights. Non-logged in users (everyone else) can view, suggest and submit translations. It's not useful to give causal contributors write access to translations: they usually don't know what writing style to follow and don't know the correct terminology. This will only mess up things or give more work to do to the translators. Please don't let submit rights to non-logged users. What are we missing? Would it work, for example, if the translation leads become Apache committers? I think it can work. Better yet: back in OOo days various teams were able to choose between pootle or direct SDF submission (as Claudio said). Maybe in this phase of reorganization it would be helpful for the teams to choose their preferred method. Paolo
RE: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
-Original Message- From: Paolo Pozzan [mailto:pa...@z2z.it] Sent: Sunday, 11 March 2012 7:02 AM To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server Il 09/03/2012 22:22, Rob Weir ha scritto: On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Michael Bauerf...@akerbeltz.org wrote: [cut] 2) Allow account creating as on other Pootle servers without any hoops to jump through other than the usual signup process. In essence, handle Pootle and l10n as it was handled before. Most of us are not familiar with how it was handled before, so it is good to discuss the details, so we all understand it. Right now it is configured so all Apache committers can login and have review and commit rights. Non-logged in users (everyone else) can view, suggest and submit translations. It's not useful to give causal contributors write access to translations: they usually don't know what writing style to follow and don't know the correct terminology. This will only mess up things or give more work to do to the translators. Please don't let submit rights to non-logged users. In your mind, what do you think 'submit rights' mean? To me it means submit a translation for approval by a committer, without such approval it does nothing and harms nothing. Why are you against such actions whilst the rest of the people in this thread are trying to open up access even more? Gav... What are we missing? Would it work, for example, if the translation leads become Apache committers? I think it can work. Better yet: back in OOo days various teams were able to choose between pootle or direct SDF submission (as Claudio said). Maybe in this phase of reorganization it would be helpful for the teams to choose their preferred method. Paolo
Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
Be constructive. What would be the top 3 things that we should change? -Rob Gladly, though I may be repeating myself :) 1) Allow some for a small number of locale leads which initially are given freely like candy but allow for revisting that if lead turns out to be inactive or rogue. These leads administer the access levels of their fellow translators (if there are any). These need Project Admin (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/translate+pootle+service+auth+levels) access but I'm sure they'd be quite happy to have that restricted to AOO Pootle only. As I said before, I doubt a lot of translators will do much in the way of committing code. 2) Allow account creating as on other Pootle servers without any hoops to jump through other than the usual signup process. In essence, handle Pootle and l10n as it was handled before. 3) Once that basic sort of l10n infrastructure is in place, find some people skilled in code who are willing to keep a closeish look on l10n issues and decamp l10n from the main dev mailing list. Cheers, Michael
Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
2012/3/9 Michael Bauer f...@akerbeltz.org: Be constructive. What would be the top 3 things that we should change? -Rob Gladly, though I may be repeating myself :) 1) Allow some for a small number of locale leads which initially are given freely like candy but allow for revisting that if lead turns out to be inactive or rogue. These leads administer the access levels of their fellow translators (if there are any). These need Project Admin (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/translate+pootle+service+auth+levels) access but I'm sure they'd be quite happy to have that restricted to AOO Pootle only. As I said before, I doubt a lot of translators will do much in the way of committing code. +1 2) Allow account creating as on other Pootle servers without any hoops to jump through other than the usual signup process. In essence, handle Pootle and l10n as it was handled before. +1 3) Once that basic sort of l10n infrastructure is in place, find some people skilled in code who are willing to keep a closeish look on l10n issues and decamp l10n from the main dev mailing list. +1 Paolo
Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Michael Bauer f...@akerbeltz.org wrote: Be constructive. What would be the top 3 things that we should change? -Rob Gladly, though I may be repeating myself :) 1) Allow some for a small number of locale leads which initially are given freely like candy but allow for revisting that if lead turns out to be inactive or rogue. These leads administer the access levels of their fellow translators (if there are any). These need Project Admin (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/translate+pootle+service+auth+levels) access but I'm sure they'd be quite happy to have that restricted to AOO Pootle only. As I said before, I doubt a lot of translators will do much in the way of committing code. OK. I think we have a volunteer project admin for the AOO Pootle project. That is Raphael, right? 2) Allow account creating as on other Pootle servers without any hoops to jump through other than the usual signup process. In essence, handle Pootle and l10n as it was handled before. Most of us are not familiar with how it was handled before, so it is good to discuss the details, so we all understand it. Right now it is configured so all Apache committers can login and have review and commit rights. Non-logged in users (everyone else) can view, suggest and submit translations. What are we missing? Would it work, for example, if the translation leads become Apache committers? 3) Once that basic sort of l10n infrastructure is in place, find some people skilled in code who are willing to keep a closeish look on l10n issues and decamp l10n from the main dev mailing list. We discussed this a while back, that it may be necessary at some point to have an ooo-10n mailing list. Regards, -Rob Cheers, Michael
Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
09/03/2012 21:22, sgrìobh Rob Weir: OK. I think we have a volunteer project admin for the AOO Pootle project. That is Raphael, right? As an l10n admin you mean? Which would be fine. However, a single person can't realistically be admin to oversee all language projects from a linguistic point of view. While many of us can handle more than one language, there's no one that can handle all of them. Most of us are not familiar with how it was handled before, so it is good to discuss the details, so we all understand it. Which is why I suggested that the interested/involved parties sign up for accounts over on the LibreOffice Pootle server just so they see how it works. I *don't know* all the technicalities of how Pootle works either. Right now it is configured so all Apache committers can login and have review and commit rights. Non-logged in users (everyone else) can view, suggest and submit translations. What are we missing? Would it work, for example, if the translation leads become Apache committers? This is all making localization of OO unnecessarily complicated. Looking at it another way - is there a way of separating the signup and rights management of Pootle on Apache from the rest of the rights management on Apache? All the necessary localization tools and processes are there within Pootle. The only problem we're facing is that the only signup and rights management path at the moment is via the standard Apache signup etc. We need to make the two separate. I've done you some screenshots of what a locale admin account looks like in Pootle (http://www.akerbeltz.org/Process.doc) The Overview (page 1) is, well, the overview, it shows you what projects a project admin has enabled for your locale cause not every locale does all projects. Gaelic for example isn't bothering with the Help files. Page 2, Permissions, is where a locale adming adminsiters which other registered users (the dropdown on the left) they want to assign what rights to. Pootle is very efficient here. It allows for very flexible handling of user input, ranging from pure viewing and suggesting (for folk with questionable language skills for example) to committing and overwriting. Within Pootle I hasten to add, although I can commit translations to Pootle or overwrite files does not mean I automatically have the rights to overwrite LibreOffice code. Page 3 is the Review screen which flags various issues such as missed placeholders etc. Also allows zip download of the po files (probably not to every users though, not sure, I've only ever had a locale leader account). Page 4, Overview, is where I drill down to individual po files, either to then translate strings online OR to upload a po file I've edited offline. There's more but I think those are the important bits for this discussion. The only thing we really need, the way I see it, is to keep the two rights management processes separate, then enable all the Pootle features and just go with what Pootle offers. At some point, someone picks up all the translations and ports them to wherever the black magic happens to create builds. Simples :) Salude, Michael
Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
Hi I wish to talk about two points. 1) Really Pootle can be useful and we can win produtivity with it, BUT is possible work with other tools too; 2) This instance of Pootle, without a minimum of one person per language as committer, is unusable. Explaining: 1) How we haven't a functional pootle instance, or by lack of admin or by method/process, i am revising the translation in the old way, with the convertion of SDF to PO, using the old pt-BR SDF file as translation memory (TM) and continuing the revision/translation. Is possible to share this files between the team and, at final, join all files and reconvert to SDF. I used translate-toolkit, to convert, and lokalize (the localization tool of KDE) for revision, automatic translation (reusing TM) and new translations . Today, the situation is total of 72696 strings (UI + help), 59263 translated (81,5%), 10385 fuzzy (14,3%) and 3048 untranslated (4,2%). With a good team, one week of work. 2) I agree with many people that explained the question of a manager per language, because in this situation is impossible for one person with skills in all languages. Same that one person could know many languages, the details about the region, coloquial language or habits/common expressions isn't in his domain. In any way, we have more one problem: how recognize the contributions and efforts of this volunteers? This volunteer profile isn't technical (maybe a language manager/leader), and he need to be the bridge between the tecnical and localization parts of project. And if need more someone to help in Pootle, i can help. Best, Claudio
Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Michael Bauer f...@akerbeltz.org wrote: I don't think any community engagement will be too successful with the current setup. It may be that the setup has worked very well for Apache so far but looking at the list of projects (http://projects.apache.org/indexes/alpha.html) I can't really see anything that looks like a project that has a localization effort comparable to OO (admittely, I did not check them *all*). AOO seems to be quite different and has its own community history of localization if you will. Putting the two together the way they currently are feels very much like a square peg in a round hole. Be constructive. What would be the top 3 things that we should change? -Rob Michael I am sorry if this has already been discussed but I lost a few messages... With the Pootle server on-line, I plan on calling on the pt_BR community to revise and improve the Brazilian translation for AOO. User registration on Apache's Pootle server, however is manual so my question is: how should we engage the community to assist in the translation process? -- Roberto Salomon
Re: [Translate] Users for Pootle Server
On 3/8/12 9:23 PM, Roberto Salomon wrote: I am sorry if this has already been discussed but I lost a few messages... With the Pootle server on-line, I plan on calling on the pt_BR community to revise and improve the Brazilian translation for AOO. User registration on Apache's Pootle server, however is manual so my question is: how should we engage the community to assist in the translation process? wait until we give the ok. I have prepared a new set of English strings (UI and help) and this files have to be uploaded first. I don't have command line access so far... But it is important that we have a definite start point with an English version that is related to the current sources. Then we can compare everything else to this version. I hope it is not too annoying for our translation volunteers but I think the start is very important. But once we have it up and running it should be easy in the future. We want to work with the localization community to make it as easy as possible for all of us. Localization was and is an important piece for the success of OpenOffice in the past and tomorrow. Let us work together to build a strong community and make Apache OpenOffice availabel in as many languages as possible. And that we can reach as much as possible people all over the world. The only problem at the moment is that we have to cover some lost of knowledge and tooling. Juergen
