VI. Wiki Supervisors have the final word with regards to any global management issue.
Do not argue. Wiki Supervisors rank above Project Managers and manage Baka-Tsuki globally as an organization
^--This might lead to this --V
IV. The Original Translator is to be regarded as the primary shareholder of a specific translation.
The Original Translator has the full right to withhold or remove his/her original translation(s) from the Wiki.
I think the words "Do not argue." should be removed.
"Do not argue." seems to indicate that the Supervisor not only has the final word, but possibly also the first and only word on a particular matter without any room for presenting of facts, arguments, or even alternate suggestions to resolve an issue. Though I think the key might be in what would be an example of a "global management issue"? Should that be defined somewhere? Also, should there be some kind of process for initiating an appeals process to a panel of supervisors or to onizuka-gto if a Project Manager/Translator feels particularly aggrieved by a decision? What about situations where a Project Manager/Translator/Editor etc., feels particularly aggrieved by a Supervisor in a non-"global management issue", such as a dispute arbitration?
Obviously no one would want a Supervisor to feel that his decisions are being second guessed by other Supervisors, that would be horrible for morale. The Supervisors have already proven themselves trustworthy/fair-minded (hopefully!
), are freely giving of their time, and are there to reduce onizuka-gto's workload too (I'm assuming
) so it would be ridiculous if every contentious decision was appealed to onizuka-gto or a panel, but you guys can probably envision a situation where a Supervisor and a Project Manager *really* don't get along, and an arbitrary or possibly regrettable decision is made in the heat of the moment. Having some kind of appeals process for possibly meritorious claims might help add legitimacy to the decision and lessen the feel of having been personally singled out for "punishment".
Promotion to higher usergroups are made by invitation or nomination, when an individual has demonstrated contributions worthy of the usergroup.
Special Usergroups include: Translator, Editor, Senior Translator, Senior Editor, Wiki Supervisor, Wiki Custodian.
Self-Nominations can be directed to Wiki Supervisors, but there is no guarantee of acceptance
Should these groups and their requirements/duties be defined somewhere? Also would it it better to have a general administrative contact page instead of having a member randomly contact someone from the Wiki Supervisors list?
Should someone without Translator status post translations? Or is Translator status to be given as a recognition of past (and ongoing) contributions? Project Editor appears to be officially defined in the
Project Conventions draft:
Dedicated Project Editor Registration
7). Editors are REQUIRED to Contact the Project Manager if they would like to officially join the Project Staff as a Dedicated Editor
The Editors listed under Project Staff are exclusively reserved for editors who have made major contributions (e.g. >10,000 characters of changes).
8 ). Editors may not add themselves to the Project Staff list on the Project Overview Page
The Project Manager will do it for you. The Project Staff area is exclusively reserved for individuals who have made major contributions.
So Project Editor appears to be different from Editor or is it? Should the same be true for Project Translator vs. Translator? (Project Translator does seem to sound more prestigious.
)
About Cloud's case studies:
Case A -- In the case of a poor quality translator where good quality translators are active on the project, might it come down to what are the rules/best-practices for replacing existing translations (could cause bruised feelings), and would it be useful to allow a poor quality translation as a preview? Though unless the quality translator is particularly slow this seems like a waste of resources or might block the quality translator, and what if the good quality translator decides he doesn't want to duplicate the effort and skips that chapter/volume leaving the poor quality translation?
Wouldn't it be advantageous in these sort of situations to allow the Project manager some control over allowing/prioritizing chapter registration -- particularly if there is a group of translators and project manager that are working well together? Also should multiple versions of a chapter be allowed to exist (maybe with a link to the alternate translation on the chapter page?), or should only the "best" translation (as subjectively decided by the Project Manager/Supervisor) be kept as current?
In cases were there's a lack of translators, it would seem reasonable for the Supervisor to encourage Project Managers to allow the poor quality translations since some translation is probably better than no translation at all. (Though... not sure I'd want to be listed as Project Manager over an obviously extremely poor quality translation... I might want to be able to require a "preview translation" tag or something.)
Case B -- if there other are other eager and good quality translators wanting to do work (and with onidzuka-gto directing the supervisor to veto the test requirement
) wouldn't this scenario be resolvable by having a Supervisor (gently) recommend implementing/enforcing the limit on chapter registrations as detailed in the (default) Project Conventions? Which as currently drafted would limit the slow translator to only one volume, thereby allowing others to (at the least) work on the other volumes?