Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bug#917995: debian-policy: drop section 1.6 Translations
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Ansgar Burchardt
Jan 1, 2019, 10:40:02 PM1/1/19
to
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.3.0.1
Severity: normal
Hi,
I hereby propose to drop section 1.6 Translations and the following
sentence: "When translations of this document into languages other
than English disagree with the English text, the English text takes
precedence."
If it is wrongly translated, then the English text probably isn't
clear enough (otherwise the translation would have the same meaning)
and would need to be clarified anyway to avoid being ambigious. Even
if not, the same process can be used to clarify the meaning of
non-English versions.
There should be no need to put one language over others.
Ansgar
Version: 4.3.0.1
Severity: normal
Hi,
I hereby propose to drop section 1.6 Translations and the following
sentence: "When translations of this document into languages other
than English disagree with the English text, the English text takes
precedence."
If it is wrongly translated, then the English text probably isn't
clear enough (otherwise the translation would have the same meaning)
and would need to be clarified anyway to avoid being ambigious. Even
if not, the same process can be used to clarify the meaning of
non-English versions.
There should be no need to put one language over others.
Ansgar
Sean Whitton
Jan 2, 2019, 1:40:02 AM1/2/19
to
Hello Ansgar,
On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 12:29pm +0900, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> I hereby propose to drop section 1.6 Translations and the following
> sentence: "When translations of this document into languages other
> than English disagree with the English text, the English text takes
> precedence."
(Procedural note: while of course discussion of section 1.6 is welcome,
it's a matter for Policy Editor discretion exactly how translations are
handled.)
> If it is wrongly translated, then the English text probably isn't
> clear enough (otherwise the translation would have the same meaning)
> and would need to be clarified anyway to avoid being ambigious. Even
> if not, the same process can be used to clarify the meaning of
> non-English versions.
>
> There should be no need to put one language over others.
The thought is that that English text receives much greater scrunity,
both because patches get reviewed by several people, and because more
people read it. So it is much less likely to have mistakes that
something that a single person translated.
Any DD can commit a translation to the repo and it will get published,
basically. Not so for changes to the English text.
--
Sean Whitton
On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 12:29pm +0900, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> I hereby propose to drop section 1.6 Translations and the following
> sentence: "When translations of this document into languages other
> than English disagree with the English text, the English text takes
> precedence."
it's a matter for Policy Editor discretion exactly how translations are
handled.)
> If it is wrongly translated, then the English text probably isn't
> clear enough (otherwise the translation would have the same meaning)
> and would need to be clarified anyway to avoid being ambigious. Even
> if not, the same process can be used to clarify the meaning of
> non-English versions.
>
> There should be no need to put one language over others.
both because patches get reviewed by several people, and because more
people read it. So it is much less likely to have mistakes that
something that a single person translated.
Any DD can commit a translation to the repo and it will get published,
basically. Not so for changes to the English text.
--
Sean Whitton
Ansgar Burchardt
Jan 2, 2019, 4:20:02 AM1/2/19
to
Sean Whitton writes:
> On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 12:29pm +0900, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> I hereby propose to drop section 1.6 Translations and the following
>> sentence: "When translations of this document into languages other
>> than English disagree with the English text, the English text takes
>> precedence."
>
> (Procedural note: while of course discussion of section 1.6 is welcome,
> it's a matter for Policy Editor discretion exactly how translations are
> handled.)
Well, all of policy handling is under the Policy Editor's discretion.
> On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 12:29pm +0900, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> I hereby propose to drop section 1.6 Translations and the following
>> sentence: "When translations of this document into languages other
>> than English disagree with the English text, the English text takes
>> precedence."
>
> (Procedural note: while of course discussion of section 1.6 is welcome,
> it's a matter for Policy Editor discretion exactly how translations are
> handled.)
>> If it is wrongly translated, then the English text probably isn't
>> clear enough (otherwise the translation would have the same meaning)
>> and would need to be clarified anyway to avoid being ambigious. Even
>> if not, the same process can be used to clarify the meaning of
>> non-English versions.
>>
>> There should be no need to put one language over others.
>
> The thought is that that English text receives much greater scrunity,
> both because patches get reviewed by several people, and because more
> people read it. So it is much less likely to have mistakes that
> something that a single person translated.
>
> Any DD can commit a translation to the repo and it will get published,
> basically. Not so for changes to the English text.
every problem will be caught anyway.
Even if there is a mistake in a translation, it's not like someone will
go the prison for following the "wrong" version. A small enough price
to pay for being a bit more inclusive :)
Ansgar
Sean Whitton
Jan 2, 2019, 12:20:01 PM1/2/19
to
Hello Ansgar,
On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 06:08pm +0900, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> I see the review process more as generally agreeing on the change; not
> every problem will be caught anyway.
We tend to spend about as much time on wordsmithing to avoid
misinterpretations, as discussing what the change should be, I would
say. Quite a lot of effort from a number of different people goes into
the English wording, whereas other languages receive less scrutiny.
> Even if there is a mistake in a translation, it's not like someone will
> go the prison for following the "wrong" version. A small enough price
> to pay for being a bit more inclusive :)
I am open to being convinced, but I do not see how section 4.9 is
exclusionary. It is not any kind of systematic downgrading of the other
languages, because it is relevant only in the rare case that the English
and another version disagree with each other.
In such a case, 4.9 enables people to get on with their work, because
they can just follow the requirements in the English version. If no
version has this status, it would take much longer to determine what to
do. Blocking other people's work is not a small price to pay.
It is also worth noting that it is extremely unlikely that (i) the
English contains an error, but (ii) another language is correct. For
that would require the translator to (a) translate the English
non-literally, (b) just happen to write the correct wording, and (c)
fail to report a bug against the English version about the mistake.
--
Sean Whitton
On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 06:08pm +0900, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> I see the review process more as generally agreeing on the change; not
> every problem will be caught anyway.
misinterpretations, as discussing what the change should be, I would
say. Quite a lot of effort from a number of different people goes into
the English wording, whereas other languages receive less scrutiny.
> Even if there is a mistake in a translation, it's not like someone will
> go the prison for following the "wrong" version. A small enough price
> to pay for being a bit more inclusive :)
exclusionary. It is not any kind of systematic downgrading of the other
languages, because it is relevant only in the rare case that the English
and another version disagree with each other.
In such a case, 4.9 enables people to get on with their work, because
they can just follow the requirements in the English version. If no
version has this status, it would take much longer to determine what to
do. Blocking other people's work is not a small price to pay.
It is also worth noting that it is extremely unlikely that (i) the
English contains an error, but (ii) another language is correct. For
that would require the translator to (a) translate the English
non-literally, (b) just happen to write the correct wording, and (c)
fail to report a bug against the English version about the mistake.
--
Sean Whitton
Marc Haber
Jan 2, 2019, 12:30:02 PM1/2/19
to
On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 12:29:50PM +0900, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> I hereby propose to drop section 1.6 Translations and the following
> sentence: "When translations of this document into languages other
> than English disagree with the English text, the English text takes
> precedence."
>
> If it is wrongly translated, then the English text probably isn't
> clear enough (otherwise the translation would have the same meaning)
> and would need to be clarified anyway to avoid being ambigious. Even
> if not, the same process can be used to clarify the meaning of
> non-English versions.
>
> There should be no need to put one language over others.
Please don't do this. While appreciating the effort the translators
> I hereby propose to drop section 1.6 Translations and the following
> sentence: "When translations of this document into languages other
> than English disagree with the English text, the English text takes
> precedence."
>
> If it is wrongly translated, then the English text probably isn't
> clear enough (otherwise the translation would have the same meaning)
> and would need to be clarified anyway to avoid being ambigious. Even
> if not, the same process can be used to clarify the meaning of
> non-English versions.
>
> There should be no need to put one language over others.
make to improve Debian's useability, the quality of the translations is
sometimes bordering on sounding like satire. I cannot judge for any
other languages than German though.
Policy being a technical document, and most, if not all technical things
in Debian require some proficiency in English, I'd instead propose
dropping translations for Policy and other documents that are targeted
at developers and package maintainers.
It is important to have (good!) translations for users, the effort going
into translating developer-only documents should better go in our user's
direction.
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
Jonathan Nieder
Jan 2, 2019, 12:40:02 PM1/2/19
to
Hi,
Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 12:29:50PM +0900, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> I hereby propose to drop section 1.6 Translations and the following
>> sentence: "When translations of this document into languages other
>> than English disagree with the English text, the English text takes
>> precedence."
[...]
Section 1.6 of policy is interesting to me for other reasons. Its
function is to make Debian policy usable as a normative document.
That leads me in a few directions:
1. There is no reason in principle that policy in another language
could not serve just as well in that capacity, as long as it is of
sufficient quality and well reviewed. We could change this
section to list criteria for a version of policy to have normative
status --- e.g.
a. in a language understood by at least one of the policy editors
b. unilateral changes to that version are only made by policy
editors or their explicit delegates
c. non-unilateral changes following the usual process of review
on the policy list to gather seconds from a Debian Developer
2. There is something very idealistic about treating policy as a
standards document. In practice, even in English, it has not been
air-tight enough for that, and has worked best as a part of a
system that includes the ability to get help interpreting it from
the policy list.
In that context, would removing section 1.6 be so bad? We could
add a note to section 1.1 to help people parsing standardeses to
understand the best way to resolve confusing or ambiguous
passages: instead of trying to read deeply into confusing
language, file a bug and work with release managers and/or policy
editors to get it clarified.
3. I would be against removing section 1.6 without a change along the
lines described in (1) or (2) above happening at the same time.
4. I think this is a quite valuable proposal to have made. Thanks
for that.
Thanks and hope that helps,
Jonathan
Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 12:29:50PM +0900, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> I hereby propose to drop section 1.6 Translations and the following
>> sentence: "When translations of this document into languages other
>> than English disagree with the English text, the English text takes
>> precedence."
> Please don't do this. While appreciating the effort the translators
> make to improve Debian's useability, the quality of the translations is
> sometimes bordering on sounding like satire. I cannot judge for any
> other languages than German though.
>
> Policy being a technical document, and most, if not all technical things
> in Debian require some proficiency in English, I'd instead propose
> dropping translations for Policy and other documents that are targeted
> at developers and package maintainers.
>
> It is important to have (good!) translations for users, the effort going
> into translating developer-only documents should better go in our user's
> direction.
Thanks to both of you for helping frame this discussion.
> make to improve Debian's useability, the quality of the translations is
> sometimes bordering on sounding like satire. I cannot judge for any
> other languages than German though.
>
> Policy being a technical document, and most, if not all technical things
> in Debian require some proficiency in English, I'd instead propose
> dropping translations for Policy and other documents that are targeted
> at developers and package maintainers.
>
> It is important to have (good!) translations for users, the effort going
> into translating developer-only documents should better go in our user's
> direction.
Section 1.6 of policy is interesting to me for other reasons. Its
function is to make Debian policy usable as a normative document.
That leads me in a few directions:
1. There is no reason in principle that policy in another language
could not serve just as well in that capacity, as long as it is of
sufficient quality and well reviewed. We could change this
section to list criteria for a version of policy to have normative
status --- e.g.
a. in a language understood by at least one of the policy editors
b. unilateral changes to that version are only made by policy
editors or their explicit delegates
c. non-unilateral changes following the usual process of review
on the policy list to gather seconds from a Debian Developer
2. There is something very idealistic about treating policy as a
standards document. In practice, even in English, it has not been
air-tight enough for that, and has worked best as a part of a
system that includes the ability to get help interpreting it from
the policy list.
In that context, would removing section 1.6 be so bad? We could
add a note to section 1.1 to help people parsing standardeses to
understand the best way to resolve confusing or ambiguous
passages: instead of trying to read deeply into confusing
language, file a bug and work with release managers and/or policy
editors to get it clarified.
3. I would be against removing section 1.6 without a change along the
lines described in (1) or (2) above happening at the same time.
4. I think this is a quite valuable proposal to have made. Thanks
for that.
Thanks and hope that helps,
Jonathan
Sean Whitton
Jan 3, 2019, 8:50:02 AM1/3/19
to
Hello,
On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 09:38am -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Section 1.6 of policy is interesting to me for other reasons. Its
> function is to make Debian policy usable as a normative document.
Indeed.
> That leads me in a few directions:
>
> 1. There is no reason in principle that policy in another language
> could not serve just as well in that capacity, as long as it is of
> sufficient quality and well reviewed. We could change this
> section to list criteria for a version of policy to have normative
> status --- e.g.
>
> a. in a language understood by at least one of the policy editors
> b. unilateral changes to that version are only made by policy
> editors or their explicit delegates
> c. non-unilateral changes following the usual process of review
> on the policy list to gather seconds from a Debian Developer
>
> 2. There is something very idealistic about treating policy as a
> standards document. In practice, even in English, it has not been
> air-tight enough for that, and has worked best as a part of a
> system that includes the ability to get help interpreting it from
> the policy list.
Very interesting. I had never thought of treating Policy as a standards
document as something involving a fair dose of optimism, but I think
you're right that it does.
It seems that some parts of Policy are much closer to being parts of a
standards document than other parts are.
> In that context, would removing section 1.6 be so bad? We could
> add a note to section 1.1 to help people parsing standardeses to
> understand the best way to resolve confusing or ambiguous
> passages: instead of trying to read deeply into confusing
> language, file a bug and work with release managers and/or policy
> editors to get it clarified.
>
> 3. I would be against removing section 1.6 without a change along the
> lines described in (1) or (2) above happening at the same time.
Perhaps you could share the wording you have in mind for such a note.
I'm still inclined to prioritise unblocking people, by giving them a way
of resolving disputes between versions of the document without asking on
d-policy, but let's see.
--
Sean Whitton
On Wed 02 Jan 2019 at 09:38am -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Section 1.6 of policy is interesting to me for other reasons. Its
> function is to make Debian policy usable as a normative document.
> That leads me in a few directions:
>
> 1. There is no reason in principle that policy in another language
> could not serve just as well in that capacity, as long as it is of
> sufficient quality and well reviewed. We could change this
> section to list criteria for a version of policy to have normative
> status --- e.g.
>
> a. in a language understood by at least one of the policy editors
> b. unilateral changes to that version are only made by policy
> editors or their explicit delegates
> c. non-unilateral changes following the usual process of review
> on the policy list to gather seconds from a Debian Developer
>
> 2. There is something very idealistic about treating policy as a
> standards document. In practice, even in English, it has not been
> air-tight enough for that, and has worked best as a part of a
> system that includes the ability to get help interpreting it from
> the policy list.
document as something involving a fair dose of optimism, but I think
you're right that it does.
It seems that some parts of Policy are much closer to being parts of a
standards document than other parts are.
> In that context, would removing section 1.6 be so bad? We could
> add a note to section 1.1 to help people parsing standardeses to
> understand the best way to resolve confusing or ambiguous
> passages: instead of trying to read deeply into confusing
> language, file a bug and work with release managers and/or policy
> editors to get it clarified.
>
> 3. I would be against removing section 1.6 without a change along the
> lines described in (1) or (2) above happening at the same time.
I'm still inclined to prioritise unblocking people, by giving them a way
of resolving disputes between versions of the document without asking on
d-policy, but let's see.
--
Sean Whitton
Ian Jackson
Jan 7, 2019, 12:50:02 PM1/7/19
to
Sean Whitton writes ("Bug#917995: debian-policy: drop section 1.6 Translations"):
approved here. That is, the "untranslated" policy. It is quite wrong
to say that the English text is not special. If it is desired to
provide normative text in other language(s), that text should be
discussed and approved in the same way as the English text.
Even so, that leaves open the possibility for multiple normative texts
which disagree. (This has occurred frequently in international
treaties with multiple normative texts and is a source of trouble.)
Another approach to nominal linguistic agnosticism would be to declare
that the untranslated policy is not necessarily all in English. It
might be a mixture of languages.
So we could have a policy subsection in Japanese perhaps, if expertise
in a particular area is mostly held by speakers of Japanese. There
would presumably have to be (non-normative) English translation.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
> I'm still inclined to prioritise unblocking people, by giving them a way
> of resolving disputes between versions of the document without asking on
> d-policy, but let's see.
It is the English text of policy that is reviewed and discussed and
> of resolving disputes between versions of the document without asking on
> d-policy, but let's see.
approved here. That is, the "untranslated" policy. It is quite wrong
to say that the English text is not special. If it is desired to
provide normative text in other language(s), that text should be
discussed and approved in the same way as the English text.
Even so, that leaves open the possibility for multiple normative texts
which disagree. (This has occurred frequently in international
treaties with multiple normative texts and is a source of trouble.)
Another approach to nominal linguistic agnosticism would be to declare
that the untranslated policy is not necessarily all in English. It
might be a mixture of languages.
So we could have a policy subsection in Japanese perhaps, if expertise
in a particular area is mostly held by speakers of Japanese. There
would presumably have to be (non-normative) English translation.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Edward Little
Sep 10, 2023, 9:20:05 PM9/10/23
to
Please remove the following email address: e.lit...@gmail.com
On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 5:15 PM Debian Bug Tracking System <ow...@bugs.debian.org> wrote:
Your message dated Sun, 10 Sep 2023 14:11:41 -0700
with message-id <87fs3lv...@hope.eyrie.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#917995: debian-policy: drop section 1.6 Translations
has caused the Debian Bug report #917995,
regarding debian-policy: drop section 1.6 Translations
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
917995: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=917995
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org>
To: Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Cc: Sean Whitton <spwh...@spwhitton.name>, 91799...@bugs.debian.org
Bcc:
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 14:11:41 -0700
Subject: Re: Bug#917995: debian-policy: drop section 1.6 Translations
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Sean Whitton writes:
>> I'm still inclined to prioritise unblocking people, by giving them a
>> way of resolving disputes between versions of the document without
>> asking on d-policy, but let's see.
> It is the English text of policy that is reviewed and discussed and
> approved here. That is, the "untranslated" policy. It is quite wrong
> to say that the English text is not special. If it is desired to
> provide normative text in other language(s), that text should be
> discussed and approved in the same way as the English text.
> Even so, that leaves open the possibility for multiple normative texts
> which disagree. (This has occurred frequently in international treaties
> with multiple normative texts and is a source of trouble.)
I agree with Ian's argument here.
Policy doesn't have a lot of resources for writing text, let alone
translating text, so realistically our translations are unlikely to be
comprehensive and will probably be the work of one or two people. I think
they may be very useful because Policy is a complicated text and reading
complicated descriptions in one's non-native language is difficult, but in
practice I expect the most common use of the translations will be in
conjuction with the English text.
The English text is where nearly all of the work and review goes at
present, so it is special in that sense. The delegated Policy Editors
only maintain the English text. It's common in that situation to point
that out in the document.
I hear Jonathan's point that treating Policy as a standards document is
perhaps a triumph of hope over experience, but in practice it is used to
settle disagreements in Debian, however imperfectly, and in those cases
the English text is the one that's been peer-reviewed and is more likely
to resolve the disagreement.
Given all of this, and the general lack of consensus in this bug for
making a change, I'm going to close this bug.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
0 new messages