I am uncomfortable with "localisation" as a main heading. Sometimes a term acquires different associations and connotations when used in a different context/discipline. In my case, the term "localisation" (l10n) is first associated with "internationalisation" (i18n) in the context of software development. The ideal is to design with i18n/l10n in mind from the start and then it becomes easy to translate the user interface into different languages, to change images, the screen layout and other "look and feel" elements. A definite cultural connotation (linguistic and ethnic). Tools and techniques for l10n/i18n abound. For me, "localisation" does not extend to adapting a resource for my own teaching/learning style - use the broader "adapt", "customise", "modify" - though "localise" would apply to significant changes such as "re-contextualising" a resource (e.g. from "London bus" to "Soweto taxi" etc.). We are a long way off having tools for such adaptation.
Hence my earlier recommendation for the broader term "Adapt". Is there room for discussion towards consensus on such terminology?
I think you make good points about the limitations of using that term. In my mind, this issue goes back to the larger issue of OER lifecycle terminology. Once I get David to weigh in, I think we'll be able to go from that.
Otherwise we may the text not matching titles.