Translate rholang-spec-0.2.pdf to French #653
Comments
|
Bon travail fait jusqu'ici les gars! |
|
Oui, Nous allons le télécharger sur le disque Google bientôt, |
|
@BelovedAquila @Pionelle les filles, je n'ai toujours pas accés au document.... |
|
@truffard Vérifiez à nouveau s'il vous plaît |
|
I see the whole $3000 budget was claimed, but I'm struggling to find the results from https://developer.rchain.coop/ or even https://github.com/rchain/rchain/tree/master/docs/rholang . Oh... the issue description says the target is gdrive. I don't see how that's valuable -- how does the audience find it? Translations should appear right next to the originals, no? And the target isn't even published (it wants me to ask for access). This issue wasn't even posted until May 2. Why was the bounty claimed in the April pay period? 0.2 is already obsolete; I see an 0.3 in https://github.com/rchain/rchain/tree/master/docs/rholang . Did you coordinate with the authors? Do they want a French translation? (I suppose French scored reasonably high in the poll summarized Apr 17 by @kitblake in #483 ...) cc @ICA3DaR5, @zero-andreou, @michaelizer, |
|
@Pionelle @BelovedAquila @dckc I made so many corrections on the document ....They' re not reflected and none of the comments I made show up... Where are they? The document, as it is, is incomprehensible and doesn't make any sense
|
|
@BelovedAquila You deleted this comment from @truffard:
Pourquoi ? |
|
@dckc as you mentioned earlier 0.2 is obsolete. I unassigned myself from the issue |
|
@truffard @dckc Is there a rholang-spec-0.3 somewhere? Can't find it on the developers website. |
|
As I noted above, "I see an 0.3 in https://github.com/rchain/rchain/tree/master/docs/rholang . " |
|
@kitblake and @dckc the first doc uploaded was messed up, so had to upload a fresh copy. |
|
@BelovedAquila i did help you for this document but you won't mention that, and according to @lapin7 one must be a native speaker in order to collaborate on a translation project |
|
I don't see that " at least two of them have high proficiency in (the target language)" especially since @truffard has bowed out. For that reason and others above, I put in slashing votes on this issue. |
|
@truffard your contribution is regarded and I agree with the new term pointed out by lapin but I suppose logically it applies to subsequent translations, which I have quite noted. Even though one mustn't be a native of a language to be fluent in that language. @dckc I think you can't actually ascertain that until the doc is completed,so slashing the votes already is like placing judgments before considering evidences, don't you think so? |
|
No, I don't think so.
…On Thu, May 17, 2018, 1:24 PM BelovedAquila ***@***.***> wrote:
@truffard <https://github.com/truffard> your contribution is regarded and
I agree with the new term pointed out by lapin but I suppose logically it
applies to subsequent translations, which I have quite noted. Even though
one mustn't be a native of a language to be fluent in that language. @dckc
<https://github.com/dckc> I think you can't actually ascertain that until
the doc is completed,so slashing the votes already is like placing
judgments before considering evidences, don't you think so?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#653 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJNyiMG8ihbgB0hCBMo0sFdwBrU_z4Lks5tzcBOgaJpZM4TvvYY>
.
|
|
@dckc that would make your presumption or judgment unstable or bias, that's if what we seek to achieve via the translation project is more of accuracy or proficiency than regionalism. |
It's not complete by your own estimation and yet you claim 90% of a $3000 budget:
That's plenty of evidence. If you want me to withdraw my slashing vote, don't defend your clearly unfair position; change your votes and address the questions and criticism above. |
|
@dckc yes because we have to revisit the said errors and scrutinize the whole document again, more reasons why you ought not place judgment on the doc already, till its completed. I find it wrong for you to term my position as unfair,that would be quick and on no vital basis,because I think you know little or nothing as to the work done on it. And I don't see any question I haven't answered. @ICA3DaR5 never mind, it would be resolved once we are done. Thank you |
|
I am closing this issue, it has been slashed already. |
|
If it is still linked on developer.rchain.coop then I guess I could see a
case for translation? Though I wouldn't advocate for it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Jake Gillberg <[email protected]>
wrote:
… From talking with Mike Stay about this document I got the quote: "...The
document ... is only of historical value; it has too much philosophizing
and not enough detail about semantics for a proper language specification.
We have a contractor working on a formal operational semantics for Rholang
using K framework. We'll add commentary to it, but the majority of the new
document will be generated from the K code."
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Dan Connolly ***@***.***>
wrote:
> @Jake-Gillberg <https://github.com/Jake-Gillberg> , I realized in
> conversation with @ICA3DaR5 <https://github.com/ICA3DaR5> that there's
> still a https://developer.rchain.coop/ > RHOLANG SPECIFICATION >
> https://developer.rchain.coop/assets/rholang-spec-0.2.pdf link.
>
> The tutorial has moved on from 0.2, but I guess the spec has not.
>
> The question of maintenance going forward remains.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#653 (comment)>,
> or mute the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEg4RgGm3aJq713zk_pNzC9lYQlBmJ4fks5t6n8HgaJpZM4TvvYY>
> .
>
|
|
That applies more to the rholang tutorial. I have been getting the tutorial confused with the spec. The spec is not maintained in github. I think the source form of the spec is a google doc... well, that's even older: Rholang Spec (0.1): 2016-08-03 cited from rchain/reference. In any case... for the benefit of future collaborators, in addition to .pdf, would you please share your work in editable form? (google doc link, .docx, .rtf, etc.)
Typically, the target is right next to the original. This is another reason to coordinate with the authors: to ensure that the translation is available alongside the original. These days, it looks like the main place the 0.2 spec is featured is developer.rchain.coop. @KellyatPyrofex do you know how documentation links from developer.rchain.coop are managed? Would you like to have a french version there? Another possibility to reach the audience would be some existing place that's popular for francophones to get RChain news. Even a blog. As to the rest... it looks like you have answered the outstanding questions. Thanks. |
|
Alright, thank you very much.
Alright, will do that. |
|
Issue completed. |
|
@BelovedAquila You consider this completed and worthy of $3000? Examples of poorly written content: ...and more. |
|
Finally you begin to understand when I said that those "translators" have a very basic command of the french language. Whats up with the sugar (sucre) above in §3 ? Pretty funny though. |
|
@ICA3DaR5 are you underestimating the doc as poorly written on the basis that we followed the way it was written in the original doc? I will adjust the budget. |
|
You re funny, keep coming ! |
|
If the screenshots I posted and the screenshot you posted seem the same to you then I would suggest for you to not translate technical documents, where code is the most important thing. In your example you don't use spaces/tabs in the code. Here is a good example of a good written technical document and here the editable version of it. Translation per se is not a priority for the Cooperative, therefore you should add value by fixing the issues you saw on the original document and more. Also if you think the original document had mistakes/errors I encourage you to contact the authors, and I also encourage you to fix the mistakes in the translated version. |
|
Ok @ICA3DaR5 the examples given are ok, but it's different from the original doc, the dark background on the codes and all wasn't there, so it's like suggesting that we don't follow the way the original doc is, it's like suggesting is ok adding effects and that wasn't in consideration when we worked on the doc.and yes, the codes seems technical as it's appearing to be. |
|
Wow!!! It seem to me like there is no end to the controversy.. Like I said to @ICA3Dar5 @BelovedAquila maybe is time to end this unpleasant dispute and move on.. I think the best way to resolve situations like this is we need to get both opposing opinions to either shift grounds or just make some little compromise.. One major thing has been achieved and that is everyone now have a clearer picture of what the guides are here for and are doing a great job to instill discipline, decorum and utmost sincerity. @truffard it seem to me that your most Interest on this controversy is to prove a personal point and I believe that already has been achieved, its time to stop the fight and focus on the big goal, "RChain coop"and how we can move to greater height and do bigger things for the coop. Thanks.... |
|
@ICA3DaR5 HERE |
|
What do you think about this issue now that a month has passed? Check the above comment by @BelovedAquila Are you endorsing it? |
|
@ICA3DaR5 please can I now get vote's on this issue? |
|
@BelovedAquila I am not a guide anymore. |
|
Alright,thanks @ICA3DaR5 |
|
After review this is what I read and now know based on all of the comments and my own research into the issue:
I can't vote on an issue that has insufficiently met the requirements and has for some time. Although I am now the guide it seems that none of my predecessors find this document suitable for translation. @pavlos1851 what are your thoughts? |
|
@AyAyRon-P I agree with all the points that you've made. |
|
@pavlos1851 yes, actually so many developments have been undertaken in the course of making the doc to required quality, you are almost completely right. But this,
it' an unfair and faulty conclusion, I don't know if you had put into consideration what an ISSUE is before now? |
|
This is the FINAL CLOSING of this project. All arguments as to why it should be reopened again are invalid. Let me reiterate the reasons why I am closing this: 1. This is an old document and has been well before it was completed I can't vote on an issue that has insufficiently met the requirements and has for some time. Although I am now the guide it seems that none of my predecessors find this document suitable for translation. Moving forward, I understand we all want to contribute in the best way we can. We want to lend our skill set in a way that is rewarding to ourselves and provides growth to RChain. However to achieve this, I invite any contributor to think more critically and ask the difficult questions before you start down a path that ultimately leads to, in this case, nowhere. |
Issue
Original (English) Content
Translated (French) Content
Tasks
Collaborators
For all issues
[Keep italic labels, replace brackets with answer]
Describe how the building and implementation of this task will benefit the RChain Membership or the RChain blockchain:
More people reading the blog posts in other languages means good marketing.
Estimated Budget of Task: $2000
Estimated Timeline Required to Complete the Task: 10 days
Measure of Completion: 100%
--
Legal
Task Submitter shall not submit Tasks that will involve RHOC being transacted in any manner that (i) jeopardizes RHOC’s status as a software access token or other relevant and applicable description of the RHOC as an “asset”—not a security— or (2) violates, in any manner, applicable U.S. Securities laws.
For Translators
for translation by @Jake-Gillberg, @MParlikar, or @KellyatPyrofex
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: