Re: wgo revamp timeline (proposal)

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 21:28 +0200, Christian Rose wrote:
> (Please keep marketing-list cc:ed)

/me blames evo

> > > Ideally, there should be a minimum of efforts required to translate
> > > -- if translating or enabling a particular translation
> > > requires sysadmin intervention, we simply won't have much (current)
> > > translated content at all.
> >
> > Honestly I'm not really sure having translated website is such a good
> > idea.  What I think is good though is having per-language "corners",
> > better clearly separated through the URL ( or
> > for example.  The latter is easier.)  and let the language team publish
> > their own content there, instead of trying to catch up translations of a
> > moving target.  Of course, things like press releases or announcements
> > are and will be translated.
> We've reiterated this "localized content" discussion over and over for
> several years, and the consensus has always been that official content
> on should have translations, while localized content
> provided by local communities belong on other local community sites.
> There are any number of reasons for this decision. The most recent
> time this was reiterated was on GUADEC.


> Is there something in particular about this decision that you dislike?

My only problem is that a local community cannot easily register and
host a domain name without a single point-of-failure/bottleneck, so, as
long as we are offering communities some local space, I'm fine with

> Christian

"Commandment Three says Do Not Kill, Amendment Two says Blood Will Spill"
        -- Dan Bern, "New American Language"

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]