Frields's suggestion

[Ruediger Landmann]

Paul W. Frields wrote:
>
> Just to be clear here, I agree 100%.  But in the same way, without
> tighter process on translation notices I would be more worried that a
> maintainer would *inadvertently* leave someone out, which creates a
> bad situation without anyone meaning harm.  
Absolutely! So what's required here is that before creating a new 
version of a book, the maintainer must review the git log for new 
translations committed since the last version was published and credit 
any new translators. The same would apply whenever we refresh POT files. 
Translators can help out by sending an email to the maintainer or to 
docs-list if they notice that we've missed anyone (exactly like Domingo 
did recently). In this particular case, I was already aware of the new 
Spanish translators who were to be added (along with new translators in 
other languages and some changes in the book text itself) to the next 
refresh of the POT files. It certainly didn't hurt to be reminded though.

By the very nature of our docs/l10n process, it's unavoidable that new 
translators who assisted with *this* version (or build) of a document 
won't receive credit in the text until the *next* version (or build).

> Maintainers are free to
> help with the maintenance of a colophon but we should always seek to
> make the load spreadable.  That's what it means to be scalable! ;-)
>
>   

To achieve full scalability on this, translators would need to have the 
ability to commit changes to the English XML files that make up the 
document; whether the Contributors section was a single XML file or a 
separate XML file per language. Failing that, they're still relying on a 
docs maintainer as the "middle man".

Perhaps Transifex's file filter can be set so that it allows translators 
access to the Contributors XML file(s) in the master branch of the 
document (as well as the PO files)?

Cheers
Ruediger