(from the CLDR-users archives; source: CLDR-users index for Jan. 2010)
From: "Don Osborn"
Subject: Institutionalizing locales? (RE: How to lock a guest account?)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:40:09 +0300
Do all locales rely on volunteer user input, verification, and watching to enhance and improve their quality?
I'm wondering if there wouldn't come a point where the data and the widening use to which it is put would require some sort of more formal management, to raise the bar for contributions, and protect "good" data. Maybe that's the wrong way to put it or the wrong approach altogether, but it seems that the nature of a completed, established locale is different from one that is in formulation. At some point I think the concerns shift to value stability and limiting edits to tweaking where necessary, and away from the openness and participation that (that we value in general and that) drive the process early in a locale's existence.
Would it make sense (if it hasn't been done already) to partner with some kind of linguistic authority or academic department for certain specific languages, with the idea that they would manage the locale and the process of editing? Something like this could have the added advantage of bringing the linguistic/language specialist community for each language (or language group) into the process more fully.
Also wondering if anyone has looked at the dynamics of locale-building and maintenance by size of speakership of languages or other factors (region; income). I know that Martin Benjamin and colleagues have been gaining a lot of experience with locales for African languages, but am unaware of any other broad-based observations/research. Not sure what would come out of this, except that there might be some correlations that point to certain recurring issues or opportunities with developing or maintaining locales.
TIA for any info or thoughts on this.
< African language locales: Call for Volunteers | CLDR-users