adding policy.thtml

git-svn-id: http://svn.mozilla.org/addons/trunk@22186 4eb1ac78-321c-0410-a911-ec516a8615a5

1 files changed, 112 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/site/app/locale/ar/pages/policy.thtml b/site/app/locale/ar/pages/policy.thtml
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..89549ef
--- /dev/null
+++ b/site/app/locale/ar/pages/policy.thtml
@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+<h1>سياسة الإضافات</h1>
+
+<h2>ما هي ساحة اللعب؟</h2>
+<p>راجع %s.</p>
+
+<h2>ما الإضافات التي تكون في ساحة اللعب؟</h2>
+<p>ساحة اللعب هي مكان وضع جميع الإضافات التي يستضيفها الموقع في البداية؛ إنها تحتوي على الإصدارات الحديثة من الإضافات العامة، وجميع إصدارات الإضافات التي لم تصبح عامة بعد.عندما تُرسل إضافة جديدة أو تحديث لإضافة موجودة إلى الموقع، تُوضع عندئذ في ساحة اللعب.</p>
+
+<p>بعض الإضافات وإصدارات معينة لها تصبح عامة إذا نتج عن عملية مراجعتها أنها صالحة لتُنشر على الملأ. أما بقية الإضافات فتبقى في ساحة اللعب، حيث يمكن للمستخدمين تصفح اللائحة هناك واختبار تلك الإضافات.</p>
+
+<h2>كيف تصبح الإضافات عامة؟</h2>
+
+<p>بعض المساهمين من مستخدمي موقع الإضافات يراجعون الإضافات الموجودة في ساحة اللعب ويختبرون الحزمات الموجودة هناك. ستحدد المراجعات التي يكتبها مستخدمو الموقع فيما إذا كانت الإضافة مفيدة كفاية ومكتوبة بشكل جيد وجاهزة لطرحها أمام جميع مستخدمي فَيَرفُكس. هذه المراجعات، إضافةً إلى مراجعات أخرى وتحريات يجريها فريق موقع الإضافات، ستحدد إن كانت الإضافة ستصبح عامة، أو إن كانت تحتاج المزيد من التحسين قبل أن تُنشر على الملأ، أو فيما إذا كانت غير صالحة للترقية إلى إضافة عامة في موقع الإضافات.</p>
+
+<h2>كيف أستطيع ترقية إضافتي لتصبح عامة؟</h2>
+
+<p>إن كنت تعتقد أنّ إضافتك (وسلوكك!) يتوافقان مع معايير الإضافة العامة، يمكنك عندئذ ترشيح الإضافة من خلال أدوات المطوّر.</p>
+
+<h2>ما هي معايير الإضافات العامة؟</h2>
+
+<p>يجب أن تكون الإضافة العامة في موقع الإضافات ذات جودة عالية، وتزيد من خبرة المستخدمين في الوب. نحن نركّز على الأمور التالية عند اتخاذ القرار بوضع الإضافة في الساحة العامة أو لا:</p>
+
+<h3>هل أنت متجاوب؟</h3>
+
+<p>نحن نتوقع من المؤلف الذي يرقي إضافته أن يكون متجاوبًا مع بلاغات المشكلات، وأن يبقي معلةمات الاتصال به متوفرة، وأن يحدّث إضافته باستمرار لتتماشى من إصدارات فَيَرفُكس والتغييرات في سياسات موقع الإضافات. هذا لا يعني أنّ عليك أن تجيب على كل سؤال يُطرح في المناقشات، أو أن تصلح كل علة يُبلَّغ عنها، ولكننا نتوقع منك التجاوب بشكل يتلاءم مع خطورة المشكلة التي تُبلَّغ إليك.</p>
+
+<h3>هل وصف الإضافة واضح ودقيق؟</h3>
+
+<p>من المهم جدًا لنا أن يحصل المستخدمون على ما يتوقعونه عند تجربتهم لإضافة جديدة. يجب أن يحتوي وصفك على تفاصيل ما تفعله الإضافة وكيف يستطيع المستخدم الاستفادة منها وماذا عليه أن يتوقع عند تثبيتها. لا بأس بوضع وصلات إلى مستندات خارجية فيها تفاصيل أكثر، ولكن ينبغي أن يشمل الوصف جميع الأساسيات ويجعل المستخدم على ثقة من معرفته بما سيحصل عليه.</p>
+
+<p>من المهم أيضًا أن تعتني بملاحظات الإصدارات بشكل مناسب كلما حسّنتَ وغيّرتَ في إضافتك. المطلوب أن يتمكن المستخدمون من معرفة ما هو جديد في إضافة قد يكونوا جربوها قديمًا، وأن يعلموا بالتغييرات التي قد تؤثر في استخدامهم الحالي للإضافة بعد تحديثها. (حاليًا، لا يرى المستخدمون ملاحظات الإصدار عند حثهم على تحديث الإضافة في المتصفح، ولكننا سنعمل على حل هذا. إن اعتنيت بملاحظات الإصدارات جيدًا فستفيد مستخدميك كثيرًا قبل إتمام هذا العمل وبعده).</p>
+
+<h3>هل ذُكرتْ جميع اعتبارات الأمن والخصوصية بوضوح؟</h3>
+
+<p>هذا يُعدّ ضمن مظاهر الوصف الواضح والدقيق، ولكن أحببنا أن نفرده بكلام خاص نظرًا لأهميته. بعض الإضافات المفيدة والمهمة جدًا تتعامل مع بيانات المستخدم أو قد تؤدي إلى ثغرات أمنية إن أُسيء استخدامها. هذا النوع من الإضافات مقبول في الساحة العامة من موقع الإضافات، ولكن يجب عليها أن توضح للمستخدمين المخاطر التي قد يواجهونها، وكيف يستطيعون حماية أنفسهم من ذلك.</p>
+
+<h3>هل اختُبرتْ الإضافة جيدًا، وهل هي خالية من العيوب الواضحة أو الجديّة؟</h3>
+
+<p>One important thing that we look for when considering an add-on for public access is whether its sandbox reviews indicate that it has received thorough testing, and that it doesn't have serious problems or negative impacts on the browser.  If reviewers report problems such as major performance issues, crashes, frequent problems using the functions of the add-on, or spamming of messages to the error console, you should take those reports to heart, and re-nominate your add-on after you've addressed them as best you can. We don't expect you to perfectly optimize or have zero bugs -- Firefox itself undergoes constant improvement in these areas -- but we do want you to take reasonable efforts to minimize downsides, and to clearly call out cases where users may be surprised by those that remain.</p>
+
+<p>If your add-on has been tested outside of the AMO Sandbox process, such as by a group of users of your service or an in-house QA team, you should indicate that in your nomination message.  It certainly helps us establish what the level of testing has been, and can help get your add-on up on the site.</p>
+
+<h3>هل الإضافة ومؤلفها يعاملان المستخدم باحترام؟</h3>
+
+<p>Your software should not intrude on the user unnecessarily, try to trick the user, or conceal any of its activities from the user.  Users (or even non-users) are sometimes rude in their comments, and while we will do our best to filter those out as they're reported to us, we do expect that authors will avoid retaliating with rudeness of their own.</p>
+
+<h3>هل الإضافة مفيدة لقسم لا بأس به من مستخدمي فَيَرفُكس؟</h3>
+
+<p>Your add-on doesn't need to be the next Greasemonkey or FireBug, but if it is only useful to people at your company or who are part of a small web community, we may feel that it's not yet appropriate to put it in front of all of Firefox's users.</p>
+
+<p>We are constantly looking at ways to improve the organization of the site to better accommodate add-ons that are exemplary in other ways, but are aimed at only a small community of potential users.  Correctly categorizing and maintaining the metadata of your add-on will help us figure out how we can surface more of those sorts of add-ons to people who are most likely to benefit from them.</p>
+
+<p>If your add-on just provides bookmarks or other simple access points to your site, it's probably not
+appropriate for the public part of the site. Like the rest of the Mozilla project, we love web applications and
+new web services, but Firefox add-ons should provide an improved browsing experience for the user and not just be a way to promote a new site or service through an AMO listing.  If the description for your add-on is mostly about the service rather than the improvements it makes to the user's browser experience, you're probably not on the right track.</p>
+
+<h3>هل الإضافة خالية من حقوق النسخ أو العلامات التجارية غير المرخصة؟</h3>
+
+<p>Though you may mean no harm to the holder of a trademark, or the owner of a copyrighted work, we can't host add-ons that infringe on trademarks or copyrights.  If you don't have permission to use a trademarked name or image, please do not submit your add-on to AMO.  If your add-on includes code that is copyrighted by someone else, and is not licensed to you to use in your add-on, please do not submit your add-on to AMO.  (If the holder of a trademark or copyright objects to the use of their trademark, we will very likely have to have the request for removal reviewed by counsel, and we will remove the add-on if it's deemed legally necessary.  This is an expensive process in terms of the project's resources, including time and money, so we ask you to be respectful and not cause us undue difficulty.)</p>
+
+<p>If you're not sure if the name of your add-on, or use of something within it, will prevent it from being listed on the site, you can ask amo-editors@mozilla.org for guidance.  IMPORTANT: Please note that this group is not able to provide legal advice, and that even if we feel that your usage is acceptable, we may revisit that decision in light of complaints from rights-holders and advice from legal counsel.</p>
+
+<p>In terms of reuse of source code from other add-ons, if the author has not clearly stated that you are permitted to use her code in your own work -- such as by placing it under an open source license -- then you should assume that you do not have the right to do so.  You can contact the author to seek such permission, but we can't provide you with any special rights to it just because it's been on AMO, or because the author isn't responding to your request.  (And, again, we can't provide legal advice, just advice about how your add-on is likely to interact with the policies of the site.)</p>
+
+<p>This applies to the Mozilla Foundation's trademarks as well, including "Mozilla", "Firefox", and "Thunderbird".  The Mozilla policy on trademark use is designed to protect against confusion, and prevent the trademarks from being overturned due to lack of protection; please respect the need for such protection, and help us preserve some of the most valuable assets of the Mozilla Foundation.</p>
+
+<h2>ما الذي يحصل بعد أن أرشح شيئًا؟</h2>
+
+<p>Once your add-on has been nominated, it is evaluated by a team of AMO Editors according to the criteria described above.  If it is deemed ready for public display, it will be pushed to the public side once it has been evaluated, and you will receive an email notification.</p>
+
+<p>If we feel that the add-on isn't appropriate for the public side of AMO at this time, you'll receive an email notification indicating why, and your nomination will be removed from the queue.  If and when you feel that you've addressed the concerns expressed in that notification, and you want to be evaluated again, you can do so at your discretion.  Repeated nominations without meaningful improvements in the add-on are not looked upon with favour, so please do exercise discretion; you are more likely to anger us than to wear us down.</p>
+
+<h2>هل يمكنني ترشيح إضافة شخص آخر؟</h2>
+
+<p>Currently, we ask that an add-on's author nominate their own work for publication.  We want to make sure that the author is comfortable with the increased exposure and that feel the add-on in its current state appropriately reflects the quality of their work.  If you believe that an add-on is polished, that the author is abiding by the letter and spirit of the AMO policies, and that it would benefit Firefox, our users, and the web in general to have it made available to nearly a hundred million users around the world, you should feel free to encourage the author of the add-on to nominate their creation.</p>
+
+<h2>مرّ وقت طويل على إضافتي وهي في قائمة الترشيح، فهل تكرهونني؟</h2>
+
+<p>We don't hate you.  We love add-on developers, and we work hard to make them happy and productive, so that users all over the world can benefit from their work.  But being on the public side of AMO has value precisely because we take care in what ends up there, so we can't rush just to make it go faster.  We appreciate that it can be frustrating to wait for your add-on to be evaluated, and we want to keep the turnaround time as short as possible.  The more people provide careful and clear reviews of add-ons in the sandbox, the easier it is to perform these evaluations, so you might also consider helping out on that side if you're so inclined.</p>
+
+<h2>اكتشفتُ علة خطيرة في إضافتي وأريد أن أصلحها بسرعة. ماذا عليّ أن أفعل؟</h2>
+
+<p>If there is a serious bug (security, stability, major functionality problem) in an add-on for which you need to get an update out promptly, you should indicate that in the "reviewer notes" when submitting the update -- as well as in the version notes, obviously!  You may also want to enlist some existing users of your add-on to test the update and report their results in detail in the sandbox.  Popping into #addons on irc.mozilla.org can help make people aware of the situation, but please be patient and polite if you do so.</p>
+
+<p>Please don't cry wolf.  We try to jump quickly on high-priority updates, but it costs us time evaluating other nominated add-ons or versions, and often it costs us sleep or time with our families and friends, so we take a dim view of people who try to take advantage of this mechanism to "jump the queue".  If you're not sure whether you should go this route, asking on #addons on irc.mozilla.org may well help you decide.
+
+<h2>أعتقد أنني لم أعامَل بإنصاف عند تقييم إضافتي. ماذا بوسعي أن أفعل؟</h2>
+
+<p>If you believe that your add-on was incorrectly evaluated, and that it was denied public status in error, you should send an email to amo-editors@mozilla.org with the details of your reasoning.  Please be polite and clear in your email, and make sure that you have specifics about how the add-on was misjudged.</p>
+
+<p>(If you have fixed *all* the things that were listed as problems in your notification mail, you shouldn't appeal the evaluation, but should instead re-nominate for consideration through the Developer Tools.)</p>
+
+<h2>كانت إضافتي في الساحة العامة، وهي الآن موجودة في ساحة اللعب فقط. ما الذي حصل؟</h2>
+
+<p>If an add-on no longer meets the criteria for being on the public side of the site, we may move it back to the sandbox.  Unless we are legally prevented from doing so, we will notify you by email when that happens, and indicate the reasons for doing so.</p>
+
+<p>It's also possible that you've found a bug in the site, in which case you should report it via Bugzilla; use the "addons.mozilla.org" product and the "Public Pages" component for your report, and include as much detail as you can.</p>
+
+<h2>إضافتي في الساحة العامة، ويبدو أن الناس معجبون بها. كيف أستطيع ضمّها إلى قائمة الإضافات المنصوح بها؟</h2>
+
+<p>If you believe that your add-on is a shining example of the power of add-ons, that it demonstrates and furthers Mozilla's values for the extensible and user-controlled web, and that it provides a great user experience, you can ask to have it considered for addition to the list of recommended add-ons.  To do this, you should send an email to amo-editors@mozilla.org explaining why your add-on is great.</p>
+
+<p>Your mail should include at <b>least</b> information about these things:</p>
+<ul>
+<li>how the web experience is improved for users</li>
+<li>how your add-on is appropriate for a large portion of Firefox's users</li>
+<li>how your add-on demonstrates and/or serves the values of the Mozilla project, especially with respect to putting the user in charge, protection of privacy and security, universal access to the web, and open standards and data</li>
+<li>how your add-on differs from other similar add-ons (in ways that are both better and worse)</li>
+<li>what reaction you've seen from users, reviewers, bloggers, astronauts, or your household pets, both positive and negative</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>The more complete the information you provide in your request the more amenable we are likely to be to granting it, though even a wonderfully-written and exhaustive application is no guarantee of placement in the recommended list.  Ultimately, that list must be -- and is -- maintained at the discretion of Mozilla, and user experience and protection must trump all else.</p>