Jonathan,
* Jonathan S. Katz (jkatz@postgresql.org) wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 2018, at 3:46 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > * Jeff Janes (jeff.janes@gmail.com) wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> >>> Reviewing actual usage shows that a number of the lists aren't really
> >>> categorized correctly under these categories. In particular, the
> >>> "Regional" lists are actually more "per-language" lists than they are
> >>> "Regional" in nature. To address that, we're planning to create a new
> >>> category called "Per Language Lists" (better name suggestions are
> >>> welcome) and move a number of the currently "regional" lists to that
> >>> category.
> >>
> >> I would just call then non-English lists. It clarifies that human
> >> languages, not computer languages are being referred to; and seeing "per
> >> language" would make me think every list (hackers, bugs, general, etc.) is
> >> trying to be replicated into every language.
> >
> > Saying 'non-English' feel a bit English-centric to me, perhaps just list
> > the initial set of lists as "English Speaking" and then have the other
> > lists be "Other Language Lists”?
>
> Or "Locallized?"
Interesting and I get that it's a play off of 'localization' wrt L10N
and whatnot, but I don't think most people would get it (particularly
those whose first language is not English...).
I also don't really want to modify the webcode, if we can avoid it, so
what do people think about this:
User lists -> User lists (English speaking)
Developer lists -> Developer lists (English speaking)
(add) User lists for other languages (not English)
Regional lists -> Regional lists (primary native language)
Associations -> Associations (English speaking)
(remove) User groups
Project lists -> Project lists (English speaking0
(remove) Inactive lists
With the associated migration between lists groups proposed previously.
Thoughts?
Thanks!
Stephen
