[haiku-doc] Re: Application for the "position" of the European Portuguese User Guide Language Manager
- From: Victor Widell <victor@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 22:46:59 +0200
>>> That's bureaucratic BS. An acknowledgement of the obvious -- that the
>>> two man rule is flawed for this type of cases -- and a one-time
>>> exception to the rule would have been the smart thing to do;
>>>
>> I don't see the special case here.
>
> Every community is different. It is obvious from Marcos' initial email that
> Haiku does not have any willing contributors in his country, and that alone
> makes it peculiar enough to give it special consideration.
>
>> Either the two-men rule makes sense
>> or not. If you want to change it, discussion and vote is the accepted
>> approach in a project.
>>
>
I have to agree with Humdinger here. There never was a special case. The rule
is there for this exact reason: To ensure high quality and peer review of the
translation. One person simply cannot do that alone. There will always be
spotty parts and questionable translations.
What *could* be done would be to handle it the way we have done in the Swedish
translation: Any translated piece of text is set to "fuzzy" until it has been
reviewed by at least one other translator. Perhaps that shoud even be a
concrete feature of the translation tool? Texts could have another checkbox
labeled peer reviewed.
> If a rules gets in the way of the basic goals of being productive, growing
> the community, etc., then it is a bad rule.
It depends on the priorities of the project, really. Do we want quantity or
quality? I have personally always felt Haiku is about Quality.
This does not mean I'm bashing on Marcos. He might write the most perfect
translation ever, but we will never *know* unless it is peer reviewed.
> especially in cases like this where the community of this particular country
> seems to be pretty much non-existent.
This again, is no special case. Why else would there be less than 2 translators
interested in the project? This is exactly the situation the rule anticipated.
Other related posts:
