Re: Apache HTTP Server Version 2.4 Documentation on Russian - translation review process

[Lucien Gentis <lu...@univ-lorraine.fr>]

I think this topic becomes confusing because too much "nested".

So In short, Nick Kew suggested to simplify the review process in these 
terms :

"I wonder if the review process might be a bit over-bureaucratic for a 
language where
translators are thin on the ground? Perhaps we could accept unreviewed 
translations
with a disclaimer advising readers of the fact (like the 
"not-up-to-date" warnings) and calling for review?"

And I answer :

I don't like this solution but things have to forward ...

However I see some problems :

--- How will people report an error they have detected in an unreviewed 
translated document ? (mailing list, Q/A at the bottom of the document,...)

--- If someone says "This sentence should rather be translated so ...", 
and anotherone says "I don't agree, it should rather be translated so 
...", how can we decide who is right. ?

         (errors are not only typos, they can also affect the semantic)

--- At what moment can we say a translated document is considered as 
reviewed, so we can delete the disclaimer ?

Le 13/10/2020 à 21:35, Nick Kew a écrit :
>> On 13 Oct 2020, at 13:04, Lucien Gentis <lu...@univ-lorraine.fr> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 10/10/2020 à 01:25, Nick Kew a écrit :
>>>> On 9 Oct 2020, at 16:09, Lucien Gentis <lu...@univ-lorraine.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Russian language "index" and "getting-started" are on-line (trunk branch only for now).
>>>>
>>>> I'll port them to 2.4 branch ... next week.
>>> Sounds good.
>>>> Pavel, I'm afraid that for whatever reason Alexey N. doesn't answer anymore.
>>> He may have lost interest when his contribution wasn't accepted.
>>>
>>> I wonder if the review process might be a bit over-bureaucratic for a language where
>>> translators are thin on the ground?  Perhaps we could accept unreviewed translations
>>> with a disclaimer advising readers of the fact (like the "not-up-to-date" warnings)
>>> and calling for review?
>> Effectively, it would encourage new translators to submit their work, but I'm afraid it could discourage the readers to study a text which is told not to be necessarily accurate.
> I doubt it would make much difference.  But when a translator (like Alexey) turns up,
> it could make him feel much more welcome and appreciated.  Encourage him to
> stick around and contribute more.
>
>> but I'm afraid it could discourage the readers to study a text which is told not to be necessarily accurate.
> Hmmm.  Possibly the opposite: silence is agreement, but a lot of people are
> happy to point out an error!
>
>> And what will happen if several readers submit different reviews ?
> Then we have a lively community.  Job done!
>
>>> In the case of русский, they of course have a home-grown alternative that's made
>>> rather a good name for itself!
>> Sorry, but I don't understand the phrase.
> Er?  What phrase?  I merely meant that with nginx originating in their own language,
> we should (if anything) particularly welcome Russian colleagues ;) !
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

Re: Apache HTTP Server Version 2.4 Documentation on Russian - translation review process

[Lucien Gentis <lu...@univ-lorraine.fr>]

Le 14/10/2020 à 13:56, Eric Covener a écrit :
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 7:43 AM Lucien Gentis
> <lu...@univ-lorraine.fr> wrote:
>> I think this topic becomes confusing because too much "nested".
>>
>> So In short, Nick Kew suggested to simplify the review process in these
>> terms :
>>
>> "I wonder if the review process might be a bit over-bureaucratic for a
>> language where
>> translators are thin on the ground? Perhaps we could accept unreviewed
>> translations
>> with a disclaimer advising readers of the fact (like the
>> "not-up-to-date" warnings) and calling for review?"
>>
>> And I answer :
>>
>> I don't like this solution but things have to forward ...
>>
>> However I see some problems :
>>
>> --- How will people report an error they have detected in an unreviewed
>> translated document ? (mailing list, Q/A at the bottom of the document,...)
> If we had a disclaimer we could include this info. I suggest bugzilla
> is simplest.
Simplest but not simple ; create an account, login, fill a bug, perhaps 
only for a typo ...
>    But I think if it is something more than cosmetic an
> interested user has lots of options even without explicit guidance.
examples of theses options ?
>
>> --- If someone says "This sentence should rather be translated so ...",
>> and anotherone says "I don't agree, it should rather be translated so
>> ...", how can we decide who is right. ?
>>
>>           (errors are not only typos, they can also affect the semantic)
> To me it is unlikely anyone shows up to complain much less that the
> origina/any other author is around to read the complaint.
> Even if this does happen they have to actually disagree for it to be a problem.
That's what I said, if they disagree, how can we decide ?
>
> If the person complaining is the only one around w/ that language
> skill, we can point them at the translation process.
>
>> --- At what moment can we say a translated document is considered as
>> reviewed, so we can delete the disclaimer ?
> If someone did show up with minor updates we could consider it
> effectively reviewed?  Or we could solicit such a review in the
> disclaimer.
Effectively, if someone says he/she has reviewed the file, that's Ok
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

Re: Apache HTTP Server Version 2.4 Documentation on Russian - translation review process

[Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 7:43 AM Lucien Gentis
<lu...@univ-lorraine.fr> wrote:
>
> I think this topic becomes confusing because too much "nested".
>
> So In short, Nick Kew suggested to simplify the review process in these
> terms :
>
> "I wonder if the review process might be a bit over-bureaucratic for a
> language where
> translators are thin on the ground? Perhaps we could accept unreviewed
> translations
> with a disclaimer advising readers of the fact (like the
> "not-up-to-date" warnings) and calling for review?"
>
> And I answer :
>
> I don't like this solution but things have to forward ...
>
> However I see some problems :
>
> --- How will people report an error they have detected in an unreviewed
> translated document ? (mailing list, Q/A at the bottom of the document,...)

If we had a disclaimer we could include this info. I suggest bugzilla
is simplest.  But I think if it is something more than cosmetic an
interested user has lots of options even without explicit guidance.

>
> --- If someone says "This sentence should rather be translated so ...",
> and anotherone says "I don't agree, it should rather be translated so
> ...", how can we decide who is right. ?
>
>          (errors are not only typos, they can also affect the semantic)

To me it is unlikely anyone shows up to complain much less that the
origina/any other author is around to read the complaint.
Even if this does happen they have to actually disagree for it to be a problem.

If the person complaining is the only one around w/ that language
skill, we can point them at the translation process.

> --- At what moment can we say a translated document is considered as
> reviewed, so we can delete the disclaimer ?

If someone did show up with minor updates we could consider it
effectively reviewed?  Or we could solicit such a review in the
disclaimer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org