Voici le "brouillon" du message à envoyer sur la liste lampadas. Comme précisé précédemment, puisqu'il est sensé représenter nos idées en tant que groupe, je le présente ici pour relecture et corrections éventuelles.
J'ai essayé autant que possible de condenser les consensus, mais il peut y avoir des aspects à revoir.
Notez également que l'anglais n'est certainement pas parfait. Donc s'il y a des choses qui vous choquent trop, n'hésitez pas à corriger aussi...
===
Hello all,
The intent of this mail is to summarise the results of the discussion that took place in the french mailing-list traduc@traduc.org recently, leading the contributors of the "LDP fr" to discuss needed features and development ideas for an interface similar to Lampadas.
Now that our two projects are merging, we think that it would be a good idea to give you the results of our thoughts. The intent is also to start a new discussion, together, and define what we want Lampadas to be exactly at the end.
I] The translation process
As traduc.org is today used for translation only purposes, our main contribution may be on this point.
A] Today
By now, the translation process consists of three steps, involving three types of users : the translator, the proof-reader(s) and the project coordinator. As the translator does the main job, he is designed responsible for his document and also quite naturally the document maintainer.
- the translator choose a document or a new version of a maintained document is avaible, - the translator translates or makes the appropriate changes, - when finished, he announces the document ready for proof-reading on the mailing-list, - one or more proof-readers contact the translator and help him correcting its translation (diffs), - when satisfied, the final version is submited to the project coordinator, who publish it if he estimates that enough precautions about its reliability have been taken. What "enough precautions" is depends of the nature of the document, and of te number of mistakes found by the proof-readers.
This system works well and for a quite long time now, but it has also proven its limits : the coordinator has too much work, and very few steps are really automated.
B] The future
We needed a translation process manager, so we started to discuss the changes this interface would introduce, as well as what would be automated and what would not.
Changes : - There would not be only one project coordinator this time, allowing the amount of work to be divised among two or three. This also avoids some lack of responsivness when the coordinator has no or not enough time to spare for the projet. - The process could be a little more standardized than before (for the proof-reading step, mainly), becoming more clear to the newcomers. The exact rules (numbers of proof-readings needed, exact process of the proof-reading step) have not being detailed yet. - A new kind of user could be introduced, similar to your markup assistants, providing help to the translators having difficulties to pass the XML/SGML/... validation automation.
What would be automated : - The registrations of documents, traductions and users. - The publication of the documents (web, FTP, archives...). - The translation process. Excluding the points in the "What would not be automated" section, the interface should automate all the steps; from the selection of a particular document to its publication approval by one of the coordinators. - The interface should include a depository of the changes in a document (translations, proof-readings, comments), like the one a CVS depository could provide, but probably in a more user-friendly way.
What would not be automated : - The discussions between the contributors to the project. The mailing-list would of course be preserved and a translator would still have to subscribe to it. The discussions between a translator and his proof-reader(s) could still be made privately by email; a summary of these discussions could be attached to the document, for later reference. - The approval of a publication by a project coordinator; this task is simplified, but one still has to say "ok" before the document is published.
Some alredy existing tools have been proposed for particular tasks : - Roundup ( http://roundup.sf.net ) : to track user and proof-readers error reports. - MoinMoin ( http://moin.sf.net ) : to reference common traduction problems, solutions and general help to the translator.
II] The document redaction process
As stated previously, it would be a good idea to allow contributions to the LDP in any langage, and not just the english -> foreign langages translation scheme that is actually in use.
But, as we do not have discussed this point further, and that you do have a good experience on this point, we let you speak first. :-)
And remember that it is just an overview of what we have discussed apart. We have to start a discussion on this...