The current review system is kind of anti-social: one person sais he has reviewed the string (meaning no obvious mistakes were made in spelling grammer or word order) and that one person locks the string from input from all others. Yes they can still add suggestions but I think we all know in the back of our mind that suggestions don’t get the same amount of attention as existing translations.
This somewhat kills quality improvements and willingness from new translators to take part in projects.
I think a different vetting model would work better for some projects:
Approve and sign off
Instead of a review button which locks a string, projects which use the approve and consensus model will have an “approve” button which does not lock the string. The string has a counter of how many reviewers have approved the string, and there is a list of all the members who approved this translation.
Project maintainers can set a minimum number of votes required on strings on the project before the string the translations get used.
Only language coordinators can mark a string as “final approval”. This locks the string from anyone but language coordinators for that language.
This is not a voting system where the majority rules. The language coordinator(s) rule(s). He or she guarantees quality and consistency in the translations, reviewers back up the decision making.
Project maintainers can set a minimum required number of approvals before a coordinator can press the sign off button, this guarantees that reviewers get to review first.
Language coordinators can still add new members to a language team like is already the case.
What this model would do better:
- promote discussion and comparison between suggestions to reach the best translation
- value new input, don’t reject new input as mearly suggestions
- one or a few people sign off on every string which improves consistency
- the language coordinator leads the language team and is the spokesperson for the project maintainer
- strings get multiple reviews by different reviewers, rather that one review by whoever comes along first.
This new model could coexist alongside the existing review and proofread, a project maintainer could choose which vetting model they want to use on a per project basis.