Re: Restarting W3C Volunteer Translation Tracking

Hello Dom,

Am 14.11.18 um 17:09 schrieb Dominique Hazael-Massieux:
>> Criteria might be:
>> 1. personal identification
>> 2. personal conversation
>> 3. well maintained website related to W3C cotent, technical content,
>> spec related
>> 4. someone trusted individual referred the person
>> 5. a W3C member is taking responsibility to watch over the translation
>> process and maintainance
>> 6. ...please fill in.
6. gating the translation through a review system


> 
> Once concern with this approach is that it assumes trust established
> once remains true over time. It may also set the bar too high for some
> genuine good-faith contributors.
> 
> Compared to the proposed new approach, it also doesn't really help with
> maintenance of translations over time, nor with their persistence.
> 
> I'm quite clearly hearing pushback or at least concerns on my proposed
> approach, though; it would be helpful to characterize a bit more the
> nature of the pushback:
> 
> * not wanting to gate translations through a review system
The term "wanting" wasn't used before. The problem with that approach
is, that there will be a lack of reviewers for many translations.
>From my point of view reviewers are wanted.

So to push my "trust list", I added this to the list.
I don't see that this trust would go away over time.


> * not wanting to get one's translations published directly by W3C (vs on
> one's own web site)
Personally I don't have a problem with that, because I don't do it for
the traffic. As long as it is ok to publish it on my own website and
both hold the same header/cotent.

> * not wanting to use github for managing translations
If it is the dual system - own page and Github - I see Github as a
possibility since the original translator can easily correct mistakes
without asking around to change a static file on a W3C page which might
be a process. And there as said it is easy to follow the changes.

Here it should be possible to either start fresh with the english
version, or add a translation that's already done and initially tag it
as a draft. After some review or review of "my trust list" it should get
a different tag.

If the links to Github are added and maintained on the W3Cs page
'Translations' it would probably be a one time job on the W3C page.
Mentioning the translators there in combination with the links would be
nice though.


> There seems to be a mix of "overengineering which takes away the fun of
> translation", of "removing some of the incentives that ones gains from
> exposure" - understanding this a bit more would help me assess which
> alternatives to explore or test for as we set up our new infrastructure.

Well, I cannot say much here, since the words were not mine.
My incentives were mostly understanding the contents of the specs better
since most editors grammar and language is a mess. ;-)

So I didn't see the point of withholding that help for understanding
from others. A bit of waste of global energy to keep it for myself.

The translations are not generating any customers for me, customers find
me through other means, maybe some 1% even know about them, but if you
are working in a special field of expertise some good translations could
be definitely a good help for your business. So I understand that these
translators would like to have a more concentrated exposure towards
their own sites. So pointing towards the translation on the translator's
site as the primary translation and to the Github translation as the
secondary would probably give more incentive to translators to do the
work. If there is any problem with persistence, or some other abuse, the
primary link can still be changed to Github or whatever seems necessary
in that case.

Stefan

Received on Thursday, 15 November 2018 06:41:45 UTC