I'm trying to read chapter XIII of SGA1, and I'd appreciate some help about a few issues I'm having.

Definition 2.1.1. is of tamely ramified sheaves. The definition is as such: if $U$ is an open subscheme of $X$ (which is a scheme over $S$), $F$ a sheaf of sets on $U$, and $Y$ the reduced induced closed subscheme $X - U$, which we assume to be a normal crossings divisor. $F$ is said to be tamely ramified over $X$ along $Y$ relatively to $S$, if for every geometric point $\bar s$ of $S$, and for every closed point $y$ of $Y_{\bar s}$, the restriction of $F$ to the field of fractions $K$ of $\mathcal{O}_ {X_{\bar s}}$ is representable by the spec of an etale $K$-algebra $L$, tamely ramified over $\mathcal{O}_ {X_ {\bar s, y}}$.

I can't say that I fully understand this. I can think of several interpretations of this, but I'd feel more comfortable if someone will corroborate one of them. I'm guessing $\mathcal{O}_ {X_{\bar s}}$ means the stalk of the generic point of $X_{\bar s}$ in $X$, rather than the structure sheaf of $X_{\bar s}$. Still, I feel this definition is lacking. For example, $L$ is an etale $K$-algebra, but it makes sense to ask that it be tamely ramified over $\mathcal{O}_ {X_ {\bar s, y}}$? Also, by sheaf in sets I'm guessing they mean a stack in the small etale site fibered in sets such that it's a functor. I guess what I'm really asking is how to think of this. How does this definition relate to tamely ramified covers? How do these "tamely ramified" sheaves have to do with the tame $\pi_1$'s?

This one is mostly me not knowing French well enough: In the second paragraph of 2.1.5. it says "Si maintenant $F$ est un faisceau en groupes sur $U$, l'image inverse sur $S'$ d'un torseur sous $F$ moderement ramifie sur $X$ relativement a $S$ est un torseur sous $F'$ moderement ramifie sur $X'$ relativement a $S'$."

I don't understand this grammatically. Is it "If now $F$ is a sheaf of groups of $U$, the inverse image of $S'$ of a sub-torsor of $F$ ..." or "of $F$-torsors", or "sub-sheaf of $F$ that is made up of torsors". None of these makes much sense to me. Do you understand the statement and how it would make sense?