[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] Samson's proposal to SLOBs

[Chris Leonard]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Sebastian Silva
<sebastian at fuentelibre.org> wrote:
> El 20/04/16 a las 01:15, Chris Leonard escribió:
>> Such PO pre-conversion services are provided upon request and offered
>> where appropriate as are the complementary re-conversion and upload
>> services.
> Ideally we would have a proper Translate Activity that would work
> directly with git (even offline by producing patches).
>
> Would the Trip Advisor grantees consider developing such an Activity?
> If done right it could both facilitate i18n and motivate some Sugar
> Activity development.

My thoughts on the matter are that we need to survey our current
baseline, in progress, then discuss the results openly and consider
best paths forward.  A hypothetical Translate Activity would be a
logical extension of the Sugar HIG concept of showing source code and
have substantial potential ot reach an even wider audience than we do
currently and by implementing a unique "bootstrapping" capability.  It
would require substantial input from a broad array of stakeholders to
achieve it's potentially complex goals. IMHO, some good requirements
gathering and design specification should be done before just
launching into it.

Whether to turn such an effort into a funded project would need to be
subject to further discussion.  Our L10n funding has traditionally
been more-or-less a "single-source" contracting decision.  As in, "we
may only know one person or group who is standing up to do something
useful, do we want to support it"?

The question of core activity development has traditionally been
approached as a challenge of cultivating collaborating communities.  I
don't know under what terms OLPC got the AbiWord folks to develop the
initial version of Write, but that might be the closest example of an
activity with as wide a potential impact on the user-base in terms of
facilitating meaningful self-expression.

If a consensus of developing such an activity through funding emerged,
it would be advisable to consider a formal request for Proposal (RFP)
based on a well-developed consensus requirements document.  At least
that is my opinion.

cjl