Re: Question about committer versus coordinator

[Chris Leonard <cjlhomeaddress gmail com>]

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Gil Forcada <gforcada gnome org> wrote:
> El dc 03 de 10 de 2012 a les 12:19 +0200, en/na Bruno Brouard va
> escriure:
>> Le 03/10/2012 10:44, Chris Leonard a écrit :
>> > So what happens when a team has a coordinator, but not a committer (like Khmer)?
>> >
>> > The Coordinator has marked a number of PO files for commit in vertimus,
>> >
>> > http://l10n.gnome.org/languages/km/all/ui/
>> >
>> > If a team does not have a committer, will someone else commit those on
>> > the Coordinator's request or does each team require a committer?
>> Just ask on this list for help for the commit and someone will do the job.
>> But please, join links to the modules marked as "ready for commit"
>
> +1 That's what I think about it:
> - Coordinator is the one that approves translations to be pushed to git
> - Only coordinator and any committer are the ones that should be able to
> push to git
> - In case of no coordinator git access and no committer, the
> coordinator, and only him/herself should be the one sending batch mails
> with translations ready to push

I don't disagree, however in this case, I was giving notification of
PO files that the coordinator had manually flagged for commit.


> I put emphasis on this last one because if a random translator for a
> random language send translations to push, I don't know the status of
> that translation, if is good enough, if has bad wordings, etc etc.
> That's why we have coordinators.
>
> And that's the main reason that I think of a coordinator not as a
> "emeritus" status but as someone that is there 90% of the time. If you
> are not able to coordinate your translation community and be sure that
> translations, when ready, are pushed to git, that coordinator should
> start looking for a replacement.

As a general principle. I agree.  The sad reality is tha there are any
number of low coverage languages that simply do not have the sort of
internet presence to sustain that standard, but they are no less
worthy of following a slower course to increasing coverage.  I many
cases there may be only one or two individuals working on their
language across a wide swath of FOSS projects and they may not have
the bandwidth to dedicate constant attention only to a single project,
no matter how important it may be.  In such circumstances I think
allowances must be made for long latency and some administrative
assistance form the 18n leadership.

Those opinions have largely been formed over the past several years in
the process of nurturing and mentoring under-represented languages on
the Sugar Labs Pootle instance.

cjl