On 12/7/12 9:47 AM, sankarshan wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Robert Kaiser <ka...@kairo.at
>> That's why we have owners for every locale. They are accountable. Things
>> like that should be solved by administrative process like that, not by
> If you go back to my original post - I had a single question. Which,
> for reasons unknown seems to not receive a straight answer.
I'll try too...
> I completely disagree with your notion that locale owners are
> responsible. If Mozilla
Define Mozilla. I think what kiaro is saying is the locale leaders and
all contributors are "Mozilla." I agree with that definition. Its not
those guys at mozilla, and the localizers as some outside group.
> chooses not to provide a centralized
> translation management infrastructure citing (in my opinion) a wrong
> interpretation of Mozilla mission, then it is Mozilla's problem. Not
> the locale owners.
again, it depends on your definition of who mozilla is...
I'm not sure that you have completely defined what the problem is other
than everyone is not using the same tool to get translation work into
we have roughly 1/3 each using direct command line tools, pootle , and
there have been some teams moving away from narro recently due to bugs and
maintenance issues. I'm not sure you have made the case on what imposing
one tool on everyone buys us. Some simplicity maybe yes, but at the cost of
trying to keep tools and process evolving and innovating hopefully for
that's our goal here and hopefully you will come to know and understand
> Most upstream projects provide a standard workflow for submission of
> content and, documents a specific path for submission. Unless you do
> that and yet allow multiple input streams into a locale content
> repository, you are bypassing any quality/editorial controls that
> locale owners should have.
each of the teams have the ability to set up the quality and editorial
controls in the way that works for each team. each of the tools provide
features. ultimately quality needs to be tested in the builds that get
on frequent cycles.
> Locale owners are responsible for
> administrative duties for their locales, encouraging reviews of
> submitted content and, in general being available to respond to any
> communications from the project.
again, which tools don't provide for locale owners to discharge these
> They aren't necessarily there to make
> up for a gaping hole which Mozilla deliberately puts into a content
> translation system.
where is the hole? what does it look like?
what are the specific problems created by this hole?
I think you described a hole where one group of contributors uses
narro and another group of contributors uses pootle on the same
One view of this is that its something that needs to be worked out,
just like all the contributors need to work out style guidelines for the
local to make the translation consistent across all parts of the work.
Another view of this is that both pootle and narro (and any new tools
that arise) should reduce and remove bugs that result in any conflicts
that arise when working in parallel using an of the tools.
Lets get those kind of bugs on file.
I hope this gives you a better understand of what we are trying to
achieve here beyond just the high level statement that we want
to support choice and innovation. I understand that you may not
agree with the philosophy behind my arguments, but the best
way to move the discussion forward is to identify specific problems
that are popping up and lets see if we can work together on
solutions that helps to meet eveyones objectives.
> I think I have abjectly failed at making anyone at Mozilla L10n
> understand what the concern is. And, while I assumed that Arky would
> carry forth the discussion he participated in, being a liaison for the
> L10n community, I have not seen a public validation of this trust that
> I had. In this context this is going to be the last time I will be
> responding on this.
please don't disengage. try to make clear your point, and understand
the points being made by others.