[IAEP] Trip Advisor grant statement of work

[Chris Leonard]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Laura Vargas <laura at somosazucar.org> wrote:
>
>
> Specific info that would help, includes:
>
> - Grant Time frame
> - Is there a Max- Min Budget / Project / Language
> - Are there activities/projects/languages restrictions
> - Are there fixed rates for translators
> - Are there fixed rates for logics roles
> - Required Documentation
> - And any other relevant information to help comunity members formulate
> their translations projects within this logic.

Laura,

I do not believe such details would be contained in the grant itself,
but I must admit that I don't think I ever asked for or saw the
TripAdvisor grant paperwork.  Chances are it is not very informative.

What I think is perhaps most relevant to your request for information
is the attached document which is a template that was developed by the
SFC for the purpose of enabling L10n proposals to be made and
definitively approved for payment by our fiscal sponsor.  This is
really where the "rubber meets the road" (a car enthusiast's term for
where the action is or where things actually happen).  Read the
attached, I think you'll get the general flavor.

To your detailed questions I will try to provide a little more color,
noting that while I am not a SLOB any more, and so only speak for
myself, but I have been engaged in the L10n/i18n community in various
capacities for a while.

> - Grant Time frame

I think the timeline in the attached document is one year, that is not
so much to restrict a successful and productive project from going
forward longer than that by mutual agreement, but to protect
SugarLabs/SFC from a non-performing contractor so the undispensed
funds might be uncommitted and reallocated elsewhere on a timely
basis, if needed.

> - Is there a Max- Min Budget / Project / Language

No Min that I know of, but you'd have to ask, I don't think this
should be treated as a "petty cash" fund.  Max is set by funds
available and approval received.  Project and Language to be described
in the Proposal.

> - Are there activities/projects/languages restrictions

So far the only executed (or proposed and un-executed) agreements were
for work on L10n on Sugar-related strings on our Pootle instance, so
we could track deliverables easily.

At one point there was discussion of payment for development new
needed glibc locales committed upstream (that is a requirement for
Sugar to use the language), but that came after I had committed the
ayc_PE, quz-PE, quy_PE, niu_NU, niu_NZ locales, split the pap_AN
locale into pap_CW and pap_AW, rework of ht_HT, etc., etc.so there was
no executed agreement, just discussion in principle.  I wouldn't
morally oppose recompense for finally committing to glibc the agr_PE
draft locale that I sent to Sebastian for testing (thanks for the
improvements, and yes we will get it into glibc in due time), but I
haven't pushed to formalize any paperwork, so there isn't any to
share.

> - Are there fixed rates for translators

Not really, expectation would be averaging roughly at current internet
published rates (or somewhat better for the rarer indigenous
languages), maybe something in the 15-30 cent/word range, but
milestone based, not piece-work.  I think that is an important point
to keep in mind.

> - Are there fixed rates for logics roles

Nothing specified, propose something and justify it to the SLOBS/SFC.
I've drawn no remuneration for serving in an oversight capacity (yes
the strings came in, yes they LOOK like the language requested, yes
they pass error checks, etc.)..  Again, I think the desire is to be
milestone-based, not hourly rates.

> - Required Documentation

Besides a fully negotiated/approved proposal and executed version of
the attached template adjusted accordingly, there is also a small one
page copyright assignment document needed from each contributor, Just
detail stuff, I could look for a copy of that somewhere, but it is not
interesting or particularly negotiable, just a pro forma thing.

> - And any other relevant information to help comunity members formulate
> their translations projects within this logic.

 I'm striking out on my own here, but I don't think we want to pay for
things that volunteers will do if we are doing our job as a project.
Payment should be reserved for areas where there are substantial
barriers that could be overcome with just a little grease on the
wheels.  What do I mean by this?  I would not want to see us pay for
Spanish or French strings, but I might be very happy to hear that the
SLOBS have dedicated funds to speed up Awajun or start Shipibo-Conibo
L10n (if proposed).

To a certain extent, part of that calculation also includes a "target
audience" of users waiting and people willing to get the work to them
in already being in pace (e.g. Peruvian and Mexican indigenous
languages even potentially smaller ones, the more widely used native
languages of Oceania and Africa (e.g. Madaqascar), Haitian Kreyol,
etc., might be good investments whereas Klingon or Esperanto might
not).  That increases the potential for realizable impact.  I
personally think new glibc development passes this test by virtue of
being a one-time thing that has potentially global impact wherever
Linux is used, as well as being a requirement for Sugar's i18n/L10n
process.

 Anyway, those are my own thoughts on the matter and I think they are
pretty reasonable, but it up to the SLOBs to make such calls on a
case-by-case basis.

 cjl
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Sugar-I18n-and-L10-contractor-agreement-template.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 30069 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160224/a675a889/attachment-0001.pdf>