[haiku-doc] Re: Application for the "position" of the European Portuguese User Guide Language Manager
- From: "Jorge G. Mare" <koki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 01 May 2010 15:30:08 -0700
On 05/01/2010 01:46 PM, Victor Widell wrote:
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.
Marcos could bring in one or more additional translators, but does not
necessary mean that the result will be better.
The work needs be put out in front of many eyes before it can get wider
scrutiny. That's what the alpha release is for.
It depends on the priorities of the project, really. Do we want quantity or
quality? I have personally always felt Haiku is about Quality.
We all want good quality for Haiku. But that does not mean that we
should prevent people from contributing out of unfounded fear that the
quality may be low.
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.
Let the alpha 2 users decide: that is the best way to give all
translations wider scrutiny, regardless of whether they were done by one
single person or a team of ten. That's what alpha and beta releases are for.
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.
Yes, it is a special case, because it is apparent that there is no
existing community that would validate anyone to become language manager
based on past record of contributions. So in the end, you will have
trust that whoever steps up to the plate will do a good job, and let the
users eventually scrutinize the work when it is exposed in the
alpha/beta releases.
Why else would there be less than 2 translators interested in the project?
For the same reason that the user guide was written by a single person:
because nobody else is stepping up to the plate. We should embrace
people showing their will to contribute, not frustrate them with
bureaucratic rules of dubious value that turn out to be counterproductive.
This is exactly the situation the rule anticipated.
You can have a single individual that does a great job (the English user
guide is a good example), and a team of, say, five people that does a
crappy one. In other words, the situation that the you claim this rule
is meant to address may or may not happen.
With that in mind, being that we are talking about an alpha release, and
considering that the rule is preventing a single individual willing to
volunteer from getting involved, I think it is quite obvious that the
rule is doing more harm than good.
Not only that, but the fact that the very same person being told that he
cannot translate is given the green light to write translation
guidelines is very contradictory, and makes the whole point of the rule
itself a moot one. After all, if you trust the person for one thing, you
can trust him for the other.
Regards,
Jorge / aka Koki
Other related posts:
