On 25 February 2017 at 01:10, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 06:01:59AM -0500, tritium-list@sdamon.com wrote:
> …And then you need another one to
> check what was written.  These are practical problems.  There are
> extant services to support this, they are expensive in either money or
> time, and the docs produced usually lag behind English quite a bit.

Is this a good use for some PSF funding? Would companies be willing to
invest money in translating Python documentation?

Translated documentation is certainly one of the things commercial open source users appreciate, and hence redistributors are willing to fund in the general case (see https://access.redhat.com/documentation/ja/red-hat-enterprise-linux/ or https://docs.openstack.org/ja/ for example)

For the specific case of the PSF, credible development grant ideas are always worth considering (as those are an excellent way for the PSF to help enable community activities).
Just because we're Open Source, doesn't mean that everything we do has
to be purely volunteer.

Right, but this kind of problem is also one of the major reasons I tend to harp on about the fact that the commercial redistributors active in the Python community aren't contributing as effectively as they could be, and their existing customers aren't holding them accountable for the failure. Python's origins as a "scripting language for Linux" means it is often still perceived that way in the commercial sector and treated accordingly, even though it has subsequently matured into a full-fledged cross-platform application development and data analysis platform.

Even those of us already working for redistributors can't readily provide that missing accountability, as any reasonable business is going to weigh the costs of additional investment in any given area against the potential for increased future revenue. That means the most effective pressure comes from industry partners, governments, existing customers, and credible potential customers (i.e. folks that have the ability to affect redistributor revenue directly) rather than from redistributor staff or community volunteers (as we're pretty much limited to using risk management and hiring pipeline based lines of argument, rather than being able to push the "future revenue potential" line directly).


Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan@gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia