# Request to join project as translation editor

**URL:** <https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-to-join-project-as-translation-editor/4170>\
**Category:** CKM\
**Created:** [30 June 2023 10:31 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-to-join-project-as-translation-editor/4170 "2023-06-30T10:31:24Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 15\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![varntzen](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/varntzen/32/3946_2.png) [@varntzen](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/varntzen)\
**Post date:** [20 February 2024 13:52 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-to-join-project-as-translation-editor/4170/21 "2024-02-20T13:52:58Z")

</div>

Nice!  
Then we will need to identify some requirements to become a language-specific Translation Administrator. This should be defined by the CPB.

My take:

- Not many per language. 2-3?
- Should be appointed by the local (if exists) openEHR affiliate or equivalent.
- Should have mandate to alter or impose standard phrases on certain sentences/wording from English to own language. Avoid multiple ways to document and explain between archetypes.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sebastian.garde](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/sebastian.garde/32/3070_2.png) [@sebastian.garde](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/sebastian.garde)\
**Post date:** [20 February 2024 16:01 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-to-join-project-as-translation-editor/4170/22 "2024-02-20T16:01:02Z")

</div>

> [@varntzen](#):
>
> Not many per language. 2-3?

More than 2 or 3 sounds excessive to me as well under typical circumstances and would just make any coordination and consistency such as typical wording more difficult.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Asa\_Skagerhult](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/asa_skagerhult/32/377_2.png) [@Asa\_Skagerhult](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/Asa_Skagerhult)\
**Post date:** [1 March 2024 09:48 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-to-join-project-as-translation-editor/4170/23 "2024-03-01T09:48:40Z")

</div>

This is so very much needed, thanks!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![siljelb](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/siljelb/32/12_2.png) [@siljelb](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/siljelb)\
**Post date:** [1 March 2024 12:10 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-to-join-project-as-translation-editor/4170/24 "2024-03-01T12:10:03Z")

</div>

A related issue is the fragmentation of responsibility that happens when translation editors, editors, and in the future translation administrators, get the notification about translations which require committing. Currently all accounts assigned any of these roles get this notification, and I think this is one of the reasons why a majority of the notifications aren’t actioned.

Is there a way to make these notifications more targeted, or any other way to mitigate the fragmentation of responsibility?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sebastian.garde](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/sebastian.garde/32/3070_2.png) [@sebastian.garde](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/sebastian.garde)\
**Post date:** [1 March 2024 12:21 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-to-join-project-as-translation-editor/4170/25 "2024-03-01T12:21:05Z")

</div>

> [@siljelb](#):
>
> Is there a way to make these notifications more targeted, or any other way to mitigate the fragmentation of responsibility?

The following was my attempt to make it more targeted, depending on assigned roles:

> [@sebastian.garde](#):
>
> More precisely, the logic to determine the email recipients for submitted translations is:
> 
> 1. If there is at least one translation editor or translation administrator for the language, we notify translation editors and translation administrators for the language only.
> 2. If there are neither translation editors for the project nor translation administrators for the translation language, we fallback to the project editors.
> 3. If there is a competing active branch or the submitted translation branch is outdated because it was branched from an older trunk version, we notify full editors of the project in addition to the translation editors of the project and the translation administrators for the language.

Is there anything you see that can be finetuned further? (There is a bit of extra complexity not mentioned here with private incubators, but let’s leave that aside as it is mostly irrelevant).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![varntzen](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/varntzen/32/3946_2.png) [@varntzen](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/varntzen)\
**Post date:** [1 March 2024 13:18 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-to-join-project-as-translation-editor/4170/26 "2024-03-01T13:18:48Z")

</div>

> [@sebastian.garde](#):
>
> Is there anything you see that can be finetuned further?

To me it seems OK for now. Let’s see how it works.

> [@sebastian.garde](#):
>
> If there is a competing active branch or the submitted translation branch is outdated because it was branched from an older trunk version, we notify full editors of the project in addition to the translation editors of the project and the translation administrators for the language

One question though to the above: Does the translation editor have the rights to upload one translation to another active branch? If not, it might not be worth notifying translation editors for that language, only the editors.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![varntzen](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/varntzen/32/3946_2.png) [@varntzen](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/varntzen)\
**Post date:** [1 March 2024 13:30 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-to-join-project-as-translation-editor/4170/27 "2024-03-01T13:30:47Z")

</div>

Oh, another thought: Does a translator have the right to work on another user’s branch? Given not Editor-rights, but only translator for a given language.

I see a lot of branches, one for Catalan and another for Spanish. It would be great if, when finished, another translator could do another language in the same branch.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sebastian.garde](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/sebastian.garde/32/3070_2.png) [@sebastian.garde](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/sebastian.garde)\
**Post date:** [1 March 2024 14:17 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-to-join-project-as-translation-editor/4170/28 "2024-03-01T14:17:14Z")

</div>

> [@varntzen](#):
>
> Does the translation editor have the rights to upload one translation to another active branch? If not, it might not be worth notifying translation editors for that language, only the editors.

Translation editors/admins can do this, either submit via file upload or by picking a translation from another branch.

 ![image](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/9/962499a3c6f953331320c6fd290e780a4aa927b4.png)

But only a user with appropriate rights for all the languages can commit that branch to the trunk.

> [@varntzen](#):
>
> Oh, another thought: Does a translator have the right to work on another user’s branch? Given not Editor-rights, but only translator for a given language.

If with _translator_ you mean that the user has the role of translator in the archetype’s project, then that user can upload translations to another branch (_Upload Translation to This Branch_ in screenshot above). They cannot currently _“Submit Translation to Branch → xyz”_  
(This may need some finetuning, but the reason for Upload “yes”, Submit to another Branch “no” is that the latter also resolves the source branch.)

Typically, I would let translators work on their own branch rather and if multiple translations from different branches should be combined into one branch before committing to the trunk, this should be managed by someone with more than translator rights.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![varntzen](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/varntzen/32/3946_2.png) [@varntzen](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/varntzen)\
**Post date:** [1 March 2024 14:41 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-to-join-project-as-translation-editor/4170/29 "2024-03-01T14:41:25Z")

</div>

> [@sebastian.garde](#):
>
> But only a user with appropriate rights for all the languages can commit that branch to the trunk

OK, this means that if:

Jane, a ordinary translator in the project, translates to Finnish in her own branch, then only a Translation editor/administrator or an Editor can, for this branch 1) Submit Translation to Branch - xyz or 2) Commit the branch to the trunk.

AND, if 1), then the one committing the archetype, need to either be Translation editor/administrator for all languages in the branch, OR being an Editor.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![varntzen](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/varntzen/32/3946_2.png) [@varntzen](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/varntzen)\
**Post date:** [1 March 2024 15:12 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-to-join-project-as-translation-editor/4170/31 "2024-03-01T15:12:43Z")

</div>

Is this how it will be? o = Allowed, x = Not allowed:

 ![image](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/0/0c8fea1b7d6436dc49b501e73b435d11e064ae9c.png)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sebastian.garde](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/sebastian.garde/32/3070_2.png) [@sebastian.garde](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/sebastian.garde)\
**Post date:** [4 March 2024 08:13 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-to-join-project-as-translation-editor/4170/32 "2024-03-04T08:13:21Z")

</div>

> [@varntzen](#):
>
> Is this how it will be? o = Allowed, x = Not allowed:

Yes, but the role of Translation Admin is per language - whereas a (project-based) translation editor is for all languages, but restricted to archetypes owned by the project only.

So as a translation admin you can only commit if you have the role of translation admin for _all_ the languages that have been changed.

“Translator” is a (fairly weak) role with in a project - it does give you limited extra rights. The most important right actually is that you can checkout the archetype even if the CKM is configured in a way that only users with special roles can checkout. This is negligible in the int’l CKM where this is currently configured so that everybody can do this anyway. It does give you the acknowledgement/recognition within the project. It is not restricted to a certain language.

I think, we need to look at the process here. How does openEHR want to organise the translations and if there is anything missing from the picture. We can always finetune.

My take:

- For the whole of CKM, appoint approx. 1-2 users as translation admin per (active translation) language. They can organise translations and informally (or formally) review submitted translations. They may need to coordinate with CKAs or editors if they want to commit multiple translations for an archetype at the same time.
- For individual projects, it is still possible to use Project Translation Editors to organise the translations within the project only. This may be useful for very active projects with a special topic that we want to quickly translate in many languages for whatever reason.
- In that case, it would also potentially be useful to officially add translators to the project, even if mainly to acknowledge them.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sebastian.garde](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/sebastian.garde/32/3070_2.png) [@sebastian.garde](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/sebastian.garde)\
**Post date:** [4 March 2024 08:50 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-to-join-project-as-translation-editor/4170/33 "2024-03-04T08:50:32Z")

</div>

This is how I would express it in your matrix:

 ![image](https://discourse.openehr.org/uploads/default/original/2X/2/27c479c28c519aeccee20a39d68ebd73fb6dde44.png)

(Updated, minor correction and addition)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![siljelb](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/siljelb/32/12_2.png) [@siljelb](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/siljelb)\
**Post date:** [4 March 2024 13:41 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-to-join-project-as-translation-editor/4170/34 "2024-03-04T13:41:34Z")

</div>

A post was split to a new topic: [How to manage archetypes in incubators](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/how-to-manage-archetypes-in-incubators/4980)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![varntzen](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/varntzen/32/3946_2.png) [@varntzen](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/varntzen)\
**Post date:** [24 June 2024 10:17 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-to-join-project-as-translation-editor/4170/35 "2024-06-24T10:17:55Z")

</div>

Hi, all!

Today is the day, the 1.20 version is being installed, and by this the new Instance-wide Translation Admin (per language) role will be available. 🥳 Which leads to the question: Who should have that role? I did propose

> [@varntzen](#):
>
> - Not many per language. 2-3?
> - Should be appointed by the local (if exists) openEHR affiliate or equivalent.
> - Should have mandate to alter or impose standard phrases on certain sentences/wording from English to own language. Avoid multiple ways to document and explain between archetypes.

…but those rules should defined by the CPB. That hasn’t been dealt with (and I’m the one to blame, among others).

Another question is guidance to how much of the translation is “good enough”. I see a lot of partly translated archetypes submitted to editor. I suggest to leave that to the Translation Administrator to accept or decline such partly translated archetypes.

Do we appoint Translation Admins from today, or do we await a more formal decision in CPB (or the planned CKAL role)?

Ping @Paulmiller @siljelb @vanessap @joostholslag

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![joostholslag](https://discourse.openehr.org/user_avatar/discourse.openehr.org/joostholslag/32/1981_2.png) [@joostholslag](https://discourse.openehr.org/u/joostholslag)\
**Post date:** [24 June 2024 10:35 UTC](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-to-join-project-as-translation-editor/4170/36 "2024-06-24T10:35:16Z")

</div>

Great news! And thanks a lot for this proposal.  
I agree with most of what you’re saying.  
I’d like to be a translation admin for Dutch. I think it should be decided on by CPB. either on a person or ideally on an organisation. But if we want to hurry we can decide as cpb, online on discourse.  
Re

> [@varntzen](#):
>
> Should be appointed by the local (if exists) openEHR affiliate or equivalent.

I like the idea. But I think we need to phrase it a bit more abstract, eg: “CPB _can_ delegate administration of a language to an openEHR affiliate”.  
Because affiliates are mostly geographic, while languages aren’t always. Eg English shouldn’t be administered by openehr uk. And I think CPB should keep the right to revoke such delegation.

[Previous page](https://discourse.openehr.org/t/request-to-join-project-as-translation-editor/4170.md?page=1)