On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Kevin Grignon > <kevingrignon...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> Thanks for input. >> >> Here is what I understand the community is saying: >> >> AOO community = team >> [UX] = mailing list topic prefix >> User experience - design and development topic related to the end user >> experience >> People who contribute to user experience activities - a self-selected group >> of individuals working on a common user experience- related tasks for a >> period >> of time >> Pronoun "I" is preferred to "we" >> >> Got it. This makes sense. >> >> I'm still adapting to the "Apache" way. I appreciated the ongoing feedback >> and guidance. >> > > Kevin, > > I think you've got it! Yes, Apache is much flatter structure than what you > (many of us) were used to previously. The major advantage that I have found > is that everyone gets to know what everyone else is working on. It may seem > daunting at times, but it has a lot of advantages -- mutual decision making > giving everyone a say, no surprise actions by one group over another. >
One way to think of it: the "natural" evolution of a "team" is to start with common interests, then to form a self-identity around that common interest and team, an "us" versus "them" world view, then for a formal leadership hierarchy to arise to "manage" and coordinate the various boxes. This is a common structure that we see throughout the world, from armies to corporations to governments to religions. The legacy OpenOffice.org project did this as well, and to support it had hundreds of mailing lists for the various projects, its councils and steering committees, its designated leads and deputies, etc. On the one hand this is a very efficient way of doing this, if efficiency is the primary goal. It is also great for those who get in "on the ground floor". For initial stakeholders, who get embedded in leadership positions, this is a wonderful model. But I think it shows more tensions as the project grows, and more people join, and their goals conflict with the views of the legacy leaders. A hierarchical organization is challenged when dealing with this. And I think such organizations are also challenged with developing innovation. In any case, self-identification is not a bad thing. I think it is great to say "I am focused on Foo". The risk comes when I try to draw a box around a group of individuals and say "We are the Foo team", and by implication the others in the project are not, or their opinions are less valued in these matters, or they are consulted less, etc. Now this does not mean that there are not de facto leaders and de facto teams. Everyone knows who has the greatest expertise on the website, or the download scripts. But no one has a title of "web master" or "distribution lead". It comes from "taking the lead". So I would not be surprised if there is a small group of contributors who develop the reputation for being UX experts and whose guidance is automatically sought on related issues. In fact this is happening already. But this can occur without designating teams or team leads, drawing boxes around groups of individuals, etc. -Rob > UX is of course critical to the success of Apache OpenOffice, so I think > you'll find everyone here has an interest in this topic whether they > participate in the UX discussions a lot or a little. > > >> Regards, >> Kevin >> A contributor to the self-selected group of individuals working on a number >> of common user experience-related tasks for the next little while :) >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thursday, May 24, 2012, Yong Lin Ma wrote: >> >> > Whatever it is named, I think it is good for people who are >> > experienced in UX design identify themselves out here. Designers need >> > other's help to implement their ideas. The bar for UX design of such a >> > product is very low. Everyone can have its own opinions or brilliant >> > ideas. But it is also easy to mess up a product by combining many good >> > ideas together. If things going well, there will be situations that >> > people get different opinions about a ux change and the fall into >> > endless discussion. I would trust UX designer's choice in case like >> > that, if we a decision must be made in the end. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Paulo de Souza Lima >> > <paulo.s.l...@varekai.org> wrote: >> > > 2012/5/24 Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> >> > > >> > >> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Kevin Grignon >> > >> <kevingrignon...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Juergen Schmidt < >> > >> jogischm...@googlemail.com >> > >> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> >> Am Samstag, 19. Mai 2012 um 00:18 schrieb Paulo de Souza Lima: >> > >> >> > 2012/5/18 Juergen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > > Am Freitag, 18. Mai 2012 um 15:22 schrieb Paulo de Souza Lima: >> > >> >> > > > 2012/5/18 Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com> >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > > On 5/18/12 10:32 AM, Kevin Grignon wrote: >> > >> >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > Erik, >> > >> >> > > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > > Good stuff. Will do. >> > >> >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > do we really need such a separate page for UX community >> > >> members? I >> > >> >> > > don't >> > >> >> > > > > think so and I personally think it goes in the wrong >> > direction. >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > There's nothing to loose, in my view. But I wouldn't call UX >> a >> > >> >> > > "community". >> > >> >> > > > I would call it a "team". >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > I am personally interested in many different areas of the >> > >> project >> > >> >> and >> > >> >> > > > > don't want to put my name on X different pages. My >> > contribution >> > >> in >> > >> >> the >> > >> >> > > > > different areas will be also different and will change from >> > >> time to >> > >> >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > time. >> > >> >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > If you are interested in many areas (just like me) you are >> > free to >> > >> >> decide >> > >> >> > > > if you will place your name in all of them, or none. I don't >> > see a >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > problem >> > >> >> > > > with that. But if I am deeply involved with some project, I >> > would >> > >> >> like to >> > >> >> > > > place my name on it, for sure. Also, it's important from the >> > >> user's >> > >> >> point >> > >> >> > > > of view, to know who are the contacts for the issues they >> have. >> > >> And >> > >> >> a new >> > >> >> > > > contributor who wishes to have a larger involvement with the >> UX >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > activities >> > >> >> > > > (and others too) should be able to identify who else is >> > involved. >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > > Such a page doesn't really reflect who is doing the work >> and >> > is >> > >> >> > > > > potentially misleading. >> > >> >> > > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > Again, I don't think so. Indeed, it doesn't reflect who is >> > doing >> > >> the >> > >> >> job, >> > >> >> > > > but it gives a clue. It would be worst >> > > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > MzK > > "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." > -- Mark Twain
