[11:53] <Yaron-Heb> I need some clarifications about beagle, can someone please help?
[12:12] <andrejz> about usage or translations?
[15:04] <damascene> Hi,
[15:05] <damascene> is it possible to add translators for a team and require all their translations to be reviewed?
[15:05] <damascene> *to a team
[15:21] <askhl> damascene, only by verbal agreement.
[15:22] <damascene> I see. I found that there is reviewer mode and translator mode. can not I assign some people to be only translators?
[15:27] <askhl> That's the same as not having them in the team, provided the project developers declared the translation policy as either 'structured' or 'restricted'
[15:28] <askhl> Only 'structured', I think actually
[15:31] <damascene> but there should be a difference between team leaders and members
[15:31] <askhl> damascene, not for who can translate what, unfortunately
[15:33] <askhl> (I agree, by the way.  I would like a system where members propose collections of translations and gets them reviewed, then ask the team leader to `commit' this group of translations)
[15:33] <damascene> those who want to translate but they don't have the quality required yet. how can you keep your eyes on them? if they were on your team with less qualification you can send them messages when you wish
[15:34] <damascene> Is there any request for such a thing that I can join or should I open one?
[15:35] <damascene> A possible work a round is a sub team maybe
[15:36] <askhl> damascene, if you open one, I'll definitely support it.  TLE once suggested a function for people to `approve' of individual translations, but this didn't get anywhere.  I also think that a way to select/handle multiple translations at once is the way forward.  Our team has a long and continuing history of confusion when it comes to who should do what and how.
[15:37] <damascene> should I file a bug against rosetta or what?
[15:37] <askhl> (When I keep talking about selecting groups of translations, it's because that way, some non-team-leaders can collaborate on a large set of translations, and the team leader can approve them at once without managing every single message.  That's how development usually works, including translations based on po-files under version control)
[15:38] <askhl> damascene, since I'm also interested in this, let's do a survey of what exists before we do anything
[15:38] <askhl> Probably many people had this idea previously
[15:38] <damascene> ok, I'll wait
[15:39] <askhl> You could also browse around the launchpad/rosetta blueprints and bugs
[15:39] <damascene> ok
[15:47] <askhl> I can't really see anything related
[15:48] <askhl> In any case this is not something that's going to be fixed tomorrow, and one can go about solving the issue in many ways
[15:49] <damascene> askhl: I checked too, nothing related. Should I file a bug?
[15:49] <askhl> As I mentioned, I would to delegate both translation and review to possibly different groups of people, and then have a coordinator approve the entire collection of strings.  This is just one way
[15:49] <damascene> https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/42727 is about bulk review
[15:50] <ubot4`> Launchpad bug 42727 in launchpad "Bulk-review and -approve somebody's translations (affects: 1) (heat: 8)" [Low,Triaged]
[15:50] <askhl> Ahh yes.  Excellent
[15:52] <askhl> As I mentioned: What you would like is the same as having structured permissions (set by the developers) + some people not in the translation team + some people in the translation team
[15:53] <askhl> Right?  So what exactly would have to change?
[15:54] <damascene> let me say it simple. I want people with only translation permission in my team. others are both translators and reviewers.
[15:54] <askhl> So that's the same as having some people not in the team (translators) and some in the team (translators and reviewers)
[15:54] <damascene> no
[15:55] <damascene> many people complain when a team owner does not let them in
[15:55] <askhl> (the translators can also be in a separate team)
[15:55] <damascene> and he can not because he will have to check them first or things might go bad
[15:56] <damascene> true. as I said earlier that could be a possible work around.
[15:57] <damascene> for every translation team there will be two teams. Translators team and reviewers team. or Launchpad can support this and save us the troubles.
[15:57] <askhl> damascene, then I think that should be the suggestion.  The only possibly non-trivial issue is how their mailing lists relate
[15:58] <damascene> we add the reviewer team as sub team
[15:59] <damascene> but that does not need a suggestion, I think. that what launchpad already have.
[16:00] <damascene> create team A and B. A is official and B is just to group interested people.
[16:00] <damascene> got it?
[16:00] <askhl> Yes.
[16:01] <askhl> So one way would be to somehow make B an `official' team also.  So both teams are official.
[16:01] <askhl> Just with different rights.
[16:02] <damascene> official means it can submit without review.
[16:03] <askhl> Except if we define official in some other way.  So as to make people happy when they are accepted into it.  Which is the only problem with the present approach - that they're not happy when they get declined after requesting membership.
[16:05] <damascene> brb
[16:10] <andrejz> @damascene: We have the same structure in slovenian team
[16:11] <andrejz> First is for new translators and it's called translators team and only has permissions to suggest things
[16:11] <andrejz> and the second is called Quality assurance team and they have full permission to edit files
[16:12] <andrejz> So all work that is done by the first group MUST be reviewed and approved before it gets into ubuntu
[16:12] <andrejz> this arrangement works really well for us
[16:12] <andrejz> brb
[16:14] <damascene> andrejz: that is a good practice
[16:17] <damascene> askhl: so what is the move now?
[16:22] <askhl> It sounds like the dual team solution works well for the intended purposes.  I'd still like the bulk commit functionality because it allows coordinators to make use of the work of others in a more ad-hoc way which poses less requirements on the structuring of groups
[16:22] <askhl> (and doesn't require coordinators to actively proofread many suggestions, in case the suggestions are deemed sufficiently high-quality)
[16:24] <damascene> it works well but launchpad supporting having translators only in your team is better.
[16:27] <askhl> Actually I think I'll create a "secondary" team for our translation team now.  I've been thinking about this for a while but never got around to it
[16:29] <damascene> ok
[16:37] <damascene> askhl: do you have an Idea about what will happen if you added the reviewer team as sub-team to the open team?
[16:37] <damascene> does that effect any permissions?
[16:43] <andrejz> @askhl: reviewing doesn't take much time if suggestions are of good quality. also you can suggest improvements to less experienced translators. Furthermore even experienced translators make mistakes like typos and such (or maybe working late and are less concentrated)
[16:44] <andrejz> hence i think it's a good idea to review all the translations (both from beginners and experienced tranlators)
[16:44] <andrejz> if manpower is sufficient, of course
[16:45] <gtriderxc> " reviewing doesn't take much time if suggestions are of good quality"
[16:46] <gtriderxc> " reviewing doesn't" Make much SENSE "if suggestions are of good quality"
[16:46] <andrejz> it does because people still make mistakes
[16:46] <andrejz> no translation is perfect
[16:47] <andrejz> i have not seen any package with 100 strings or more without any (at least minor gramatical) mistakes
[16:47] <andrejz> it just depends how high you set the quality bar
[16:48] <damascene> +1
[16:48] <askhl> damascene, if you add the reviewer team as a subteam, nothing should happen at all - the reviewers will just happen to also be members of another team (having no other implications)
[16:50] <damascene> good. they will get the mail list discussions too
[16:54] <askhl> andrejz, I agree that reviewing good translations takes little time, but I still believe that reviewing (saying "I approve of this message") and "committing" (saying "this message is now part of the distribution") should be separable actions.  In particular I would like a different set of people to do these things, and I'd like to have a low bar for being a reviewer (basically none) but a high bar for being a committer.  For what it's wor
[16:56] <askhl> (Also: In our team, all translations are reviewed, but we'd like to get the new translators more involved in the review of their messages instead of simply correcting-and-approving their strings)
[16:57] <askhl> (This has some historical precedence as our team also works upstream in many places, and mostly reviews are done by sending po-files in e-mails, which turns out to be very flexible)
[17:06] <gtriderxc> "no translation is perfect"
[17:06] <gtriderxc> U would be surprised
[17:07] <gtriderxc> how many times I make something work in a program by translating it
[17:08] <gtriderxc> I think I make less mistakes translating than the native already has
[17:08] <gtriderxc> I made a Software Center translation because it was useless
[17:11] <gtriderxc> Polish users use synaptic if they choose Ubuntu at all
[17:12] <damascene> software center is easier
[17:12] <gtriderxc> now it is
[17:12] <gtriderxc> but there is a mess
[17:12] <gtriderxc> hard to find what You're looking for
[17:13] <gtriderxc> too many ppl give too many names in too many ways
[17:14] <gtriderxc> in 60-70% i was unable to translate the description of a program without looking 4 it in the internet or even installing it
[17:14] <gtriderxc> so one will tell me that "no translation is perfect"
[17:15] <damascene> I think the description is shared with synaptic, isn't it?
[17:15] <gtriderxc> :) nut in synaptic there is an alphabetical order
[17:15] <gtriderxc> ORDER
[17:15] <gtriderxc> ther is an ORDER at all
[17:16] <damascene> I see
[17:16] <gtriderxc> so now our Polish Center is relative clear
[17:17] <gtriderxc> everyone can see which program is for what
[17:17] <gtriderxc> in English software center You have to know what are You looking 4
[17:18] <damascene> looks like your software center do things without you having to know about it :)
[17:19] <gtriderxc> so an example:
[17:19] <damascene> did you build it from scratch or you just modified synaptic
[17:21] <gtriderxc> we have a search engine in SC, haven't we??
[17:21] <gtriderxc> so
[17:21] <gtriderxc> the engine looks 4 key words
[17:22] <gtriderxc> many english apps in SC have no key words
[17:22] <gtriderxc> !!
[17:22] <damascene> that is a problem
[17:22] <gtriderxc> so if you're looking for a stupid pdf reader in english SC, You will find only few of them
[17:23] <gtriderxc> in "MY" ours polish if You write pdf, You will finf them all
[17:23] <damascene> SC does not search the description, wired
[17:23] <gtriderxc> it looks for h1 and h2 doesn't it??
[17:25] <damascene> I did not use it that much. don't know
[17:25] <gtriderxc> :)
[17:25] <gtriderxc> so You use synaptic rather:)
[17:26] <damascene> I just use apt or aptitude
[17:26] <damascene> it does the job for me
[17:27] <gtriderxc> so You were first a Linux user and then Ubuntu user probably. I was first a Ubuntu user and now i'm becoming a real Linux user
[17:27] <damascene> :)
[17:28] <gtriderxc> anyway where R U from??
[17:29] <damascene> I'm Arabic
[17:29] <damascene> aptitude search whatever
[17:29] <damascene> get every thing you want
[17:30] <damascene> I leave in Saudi Arabia
[17:30] <gtriderxc> wow:)
[17:30] <gtriderxc> so I saw Sun shining recently:)
[17:30] <gtriderxc> I haven't since a few weeks:)
[17:31] <gtriderxc> only clouds and snow
[17:31] <damascene> :D
[17:32] <damascene> you should see it in the summer. it burns. :)
[17:32] <gtriderxc> but not as much as at Your place
[17:32] <andrejz> @gtriderxc:  this means english descriptions are not perfect either
[17:32] <gtriderxc> right
[17:33] <gtriderxc> I report many bugs in them
[17:33] <andrejz> what i was trying to say is that i have reviewed many programs (some of them i have translated myself and then reviewed them a month or so later).
[17:33] <gtriderxc> it happens
[17:34] <gtriderxc> i also correct myself
[17:34] <andrejz> i have find at least a couple of minor mistakes in all of them - that's why i think it's worth reviewing, because you remove a lot of minor glitches thisway
[17:34] <andrejz> of course some still remain
[17:34] <gtriderxc> not very often but it happens
[17:34] <gtriderxc> the Polish problem is we have no ppl to translate corectly
[17:35] <gtriderxc> there are ppl who open Rosetta and give some stupid suggestions to correctly translated strings
[17:35] <andrejz> of course what i said makes sense if there is enough people to do it
[17:35] <gtriderxc> so the problem is more to organize it all
[17:36] <andrejz> if there are not enough people i guess one must make a compromise
[17:36] <gtriderxc> the problem is also in Polish administrator
[17:37] <gtriderxc> he doesn't do too much and do not allow new people to do too much
[17:37] <andrejz> well that's another issue. fortunatley the previous leader of our group stepped down gracefully when he realised he didn't have time anymore
[17:37] <andrejz> brb
[17:37] <gtriderxc> our do not have time either
[17:38] <gtriderxc> he never answer any of my email
[17:38] <gtriderxc> *answerde
[17:38] <gtriderxc> *answered
[17:40] <damascene> I suggest ubuntu start charging who ever does not benefit the community
[17:40] <damascene> then who does the work can get paid
[17:42] <gtriderxc> i think Ubuntu do not stands on its feet well enough to do it
[17:43] <gtriderxc> do not stands:)
[17:43] <gtriderxc> I sometimes like to read things I wrote:)
[17:43] <damascene> :)
[17:44] <gtriderxc> as far as I know already myself I know that I have to read every translation I make
[17:46] <gtriderxc> I make many typing errors especially by switching the letters. for example taht>instaed of>that. my left hend writes to slow:)
[17:46] <gtriderxc> *hand:)
[17:46] <damascene> you might try to learn colemak or what ever it's called
[17:46] <damascene> and try to work early in the morning
[17:57] <andrejz> @gtridexrc: i think paying money is bad, because than greedy people concentrate on quantity rather than quality and we don't want those people
[17:58] <andrejz> also, meet on a beer with your administrator
[17:58] <andrejz> i am sure you will be able to sort things out then ;)
[18:04] <askhl> the power of beer should not be underestimated...
[18:04] <andrejz> +1
[18:04] <andrejz> also if it doesn't work you can always drik MORE :)
[18:09] <gtriderxc> :)
[18:10] <andrejz> we meet on beer once per month. not everyone can come all the time, but it's still very good, so i highly recommend (if the distance is not too great obviously)