Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi Michael, :-) On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 05:36, Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com wrote: a clear decision about the management of the libreoffice.org website. It's an important tool for marketing. I have plenty of ideas about how to market with it Here is my clear idea: since you are doing the work - you get to own it, lead it, and those that don't like what you do get to gripe at you, and everyone else gets to back you up :-) [ if only to keep you motivated, happy and productive ;-]. I get the idea, but I'm not sure if it is really viable as a form of management. For instance, me, I want to do *work* for the project. But I don't want to spend more time writing to lists arguing with people, etc, than actually doing useful work. My experience to date has been 90% debating by e-mail and 10% actual work... And I certainly didn't feel too much back up until the last few days... So I probably won't be tempted to carry on the work past my original goal of seeing the LibreOffice community with a website. At the moment, spending more time with my guitar sounds more inviting! ;-) and I would like to get a clear remit to work on that with you. Please can you read my post [1] on the SC list and contribute your thoughts on it? I read it - it had about five new formal roles in it - so I didn't like it. I'd much prefer that you were the leader by dint of actually doing all the hard work (like you are now) :-) I do see what you mean, but working on the website for the project has not been a good experience so far... A whole lot of criticism, very little useful support, very little practical help from anyone... (personally) I am not a big believer in lots of formal access control - but in social pressure and consensus building: you created some nice content - how can we help you stop other people mangling it ? I don't really know, Michael... You tell me? :-D If you allow the site to be run in a chaotic, uncontrolled manner, I think you'll lose a lot of the benefit it could otherwise bring the foundation. True, so I wonder how we can help coax people into producing and editing in a tasteful and restrained way ? how can we build good taste, and/or asking-when-they-don't-know-the-answer into the community of editors ? Well, again, this is apparently the SC's laisse-faire / anarchical style of community governance... or non-governance... so you tell me the answers to those questions... ;-) It's a system that might work when you're dealing with just people of goodwill and good intent... but we all know that there are always some people with negative behaviors and attitudes... How is one supposed to cope with them? In practice, this anarchical management style did not build you a website. When left to organize the work by themselves, the website team did not build you any kind of website at all. It took nearly 3 months before LibreOffice got a website. And that was due, in large part, to the bloody-minded obstinacy of one person. My humble 2 cents is that the SC's social experiment has proved a failure. And if you count on the same methods for the future management of your website, I think you'll reap either more failure or - at best - a mediocre result. I think I'd like to start a larger debate about where TDF is going when i finished the work on the website and hand it back to you to manage however you feel best. ;-) Does that help ? :-) Well, it gives me an idea of you guys' position... Thanks for that... But so far it doesn't actually help as such, no... :-D In any case, thanks for your input. ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] next phone conference on Thursday
Hello, our next SC confcall will be on Thursday. We'll hear each other Thursday, January 13th 1700 UTC For your local date and time, see http://www.doodle.com/svqmnnrw8hv6dsbp The dial-in details are available at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Steering_Committee_Meetings#Dial-in_Details The conference room number is 53 71 38. The PIN will be 281. Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
On 1/7/11 4:12 PM, David Nelson wrote: To do that job, I would ask - for a period of 4 months, subsequently renewable on condition of the SC's approval - for complete authority and final veto on all content on the libreoffice.org website. I want to be considered *the boss* of the libreoffice.org website, and my decisions would only be overridden by a majority vote of SC members. Anything short of that, my decision wins. Hi David, I am totally against such a decision. You have done a very good job for the progress of the web site, but I do not think that anyone inside the project deserves the title of boss of a specific project. TDF is a community project, and we must respect the community way of doing things. Consensus is key for the progress of the project, and for the progress of sub projects within the main project. Forced consensus, even if backed by the SC, is not going to work. This would give me the necessary authority to try some imaginative and ambitious plans that I will put to Marketing. You are invited and welcome to share your ambitious plans with the community of volunteers interested in marketing TDF and LibreOffice. Any marketing plan must be shared and agreed before being put into practice. I would ask for the title of Executive editor of the libreoffice.org website. The only reason I have for asking for this title is that it gives me a handle to use in relations with outside parties, such as the press. David, this is puzzling and worrying me at the same time. Why should you talk to the press outside TDF communication activities, which are coordinated by the SC and have already four official spokespersons? If it is appropriate for you to talk with the press on behalf of TDF, we will be more than happy to put you forward after having been media trained (the entire SC has been media trained). If you feel able to grant me this trust, you can be sure that I will act responsibly and wisely, and that my sole aim will be to advance and protect the interests of the LibreOffice project and community. I am just one out of eight the SC members, but I will strongly disapprove any decision in the direction requested by your message. I believe in teamwork and community-building. I would be keen to listen to and to learn from others, and to take the smartest decisions possible. I would seek to leave behind a positive contribution. David, so far, you have been a good community member, and you have done a lot for the project. In my opinion, though, your request is not a demonstration of respect for teamwork and community building. Even if we are used to work in a corporate environment, we must accept that the community environment is a different one, and even if we hate lengthy discussions we need to cope with them using different weapons from traditional corporate hierarchy. You have already got something unusual, i.e. a few days of extraordinary empowerment - and I am sure that you have used them to the advantage of the project - but this, in my opinion, does not qualify for another request of the same kind, and for a longer span of time. So said, I am keen to listen to the opinion of the other members of the SC. Ciao, Italo -- Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813 Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi David, *, On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:33 AM, David Nelson comme...@traduction.biz wrote: I'd like to suggest that there should be an editing team officially appointed: An editing team is a good idea, however - one *English NL* executive editor (with publishing/admin powers), one is not enough, as one might be ill/on vacation, etc. Also it doesn't quite fit in the community idea - Charles Schulz, Florian Effenberger and Italo Vignoli as managing editors (with publishing/admin powers). I'd rather have more of managing editors - not sure whether there needs to be a dedicate executive editor position, but rather a couple of managing editors But same as above, the list is too short, esp. as those people are heavily involved in other areas. To kick-start it, it might be enough, but it should quickly be expanded to include other people who have contributed in a reasonable fashion/have proven that they are capable of the task. - one person from Design, Christoph Noack, with author powers, to consult with about buttons and images. I don't otherwise see the Design team playing much of a role in the running of the website, beyond ensuring compliance with the graphic charter (which is principally imposed by the theme). -1 Especially in terms of design, artworkt, etc. you cannot have enough contributors. Having one peer contact: Yes, this is desireable (i.e. one who forwards the requests of the website team and reports back the results of the design team). As it is hard enough to get artwork to put up on the site, you shouldn't artificially limit the amount of possible contributors by only having one person with powers. - one or two technical administrators: Christian Lohmaier and Erich Christian (with admin powers). My suggestion would be that they do limit themselves to *technical* administration alone, without any interest in the content side (this is what they currently do with the other NL sites). This should be no problem, as at least we two have other areas to work with as well :-) However I surely have an interest in the content part, since the content in the end determines what features to add to the site, etc. Focus surely is on the technical part. - one contributors team, principally of English NL speakers (each member with author powers). Yes, success or failure all depends on the contributors. IMHO, if you organize things like this, you will have a tool that is efficiently run and that will provide TDF with the most-effective marketing platform. If you allow the site to be run in a chaotic, uncontrolled manner, I think you'll lose a lot of the benefit it could otherwise bring the foundation. Well, I somewhat disagree here. I guess the biggest problem wrt the english site is/was that there has not been an english native-lang project within the OOo-project, thus there was no group like for example in the french and german NL-projects that were already familiar with working together on website content and familiar with collaborating in an opensource project. English content on the OOo website has been created by lots of different people, none being in an english project, over a rather long period of time. The OOo website redesign was a lengthy process, but involved a lot of people (which was a good thing). I think it is worth to get back to that working style, although it sometimes introduces unnecessary delays or lengthy discussions - we won't have the time pressure anymore. In any case, may I encourage you to take some clear decisions about this over the next few days? +1 for having a dedicated Publisher/Reviewer group for proofreading the submissions, dealing as contact-point for new contributors, but -1 for limiting that group to such a small group of people, esp. you definitely need to involve design/artwork more. ciao Christian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi David, *, On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:12 PM, David Nelson comme...@traduction.biz wrote: To do that job, I would ask - for a period of 4 months, subsequently renewable on condition of the SC's approval - for complete authority and final veto on all content on the libreoffice.org website. I have to agree with the others that I don't like this way of handling the situation. I'm rather with Michael: Whose who do the work have the say anyway. I want to be considered *the boss* of the libreoffice.org website, and my decisions would only be overridden by a majority vote of SC members. Anything short of that, my decision wins. I'd rather prefer if that would not be needed in the first place - being the boss because one is the person who does the work gives me a better feeling than I'm the boss because that's written on my nametag This would give me the necessary authority to try some imaginative and ambitious plans that I will put to Marketing. Well - in that case I even more have to say -1 If you're the only one to think your plans are great (and in only this case you'd need to have Boss-powers), then I'd rather not follow that plan. If other people agree, then you're the boss because you're driving things forward. I would ask for the title of Executive editor of the libreoffice.org website. The only reason I have for asking for this title is that it gives me a handle to use in relations with outside parties, such as the press. Regarding representing the TDF/the project to the press, others have responded already. [...] What do you say, guys? ;-) Can we try this experiment and see what it produces? I'd say now (but I'm no SC member) - the goals of the TDF are to drive community collaboration in the end, not one party can do as they please. Experience, and actual contribution/work done should weigh more than a title. That is nothing wrong with giving you a title Executive editor - but the I can veto whatever I want part is what I don't agree with. I'm sure you wouldn't abuse that power, but is the message it signals to the outside, the principle behind it that doesn't please me. The community should be ruled based on rationale decisions, on discussions where people can provide input, etc (and that quality of the opinion/person behind it weighs more than just quantity of votes). Having a mini-dictatorship is OK for special cases, but is not a long-term situation. ciao Christian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi Christian, David, all, I'm not a SC member, but I'd like to support Christian's proposals: Christian Lohmaier schrieb: Hi David, *, On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:33 AM, David Nelsoncomme...@traduction.biz wrote: I'd like to suggest that there should be an editing team officially appointed: An editing team is a good idea, however We definitely need people feeling responsible for their specific area of expertize / interest. By using the SilverStripe features to create pages and let them be reviewed before final publishing we will be able to keep the website quality high while increasing the website team (when people have shown their dedication and skills). - one *English NL* executive editor (with publishing/admin powers), one is not enough, as one might be ill/on vacation, etc. +1 I think native lang contributors are important, but not necessarily the only ones to finally approve every content. Also it doesn't quite fit in the community idea - Charles Schulz, Florian Effenberger and Italo Vignoli as managing editors (with publishing/admin powers). I'd rather have more of managing editors - not sure whether there needs to be a dedicate executive editor position, but rather a couple of managing editors But same as above, the list is too short, esp. as those people are heavily involved in other areas. I don't understand what these managing editors should do :-( Should they decide which content is allowed to be placed on the website, while the executive editor takes only care of the right wording? If so, these three people are way too heavily involved in other important tasks to be consulted with any new paragraph, news item or press release. To kick-start it, it might be enough, but it should quickly be expanded to include other people who have contributed in a reasonable fashion/have proven that they are capable of the task. +1 - one person from Design, Christoph Noack, with author powers, to consult with about buttons and images. I don't otherwise see the Design team playing much of a role in the running of the website, beyond ensuring compliance with the graphic charter (which is principally imposed by the theme). -1 Especially in terms of design, artworkt, etc. you cannot have enough contributors. We need a consistent theming / visual design for the website. But this doesn't mean that every image, screenshot or button has to be created or approved by Christoph. Christoph is our most recognized UX expert, so his word is important in theming and visual structure too. Having one peer contact: Yes, this is desireable (i.e. one who forwards the requests of the website team and reports back the results of the design team). Here I'd like to see two at least like you mentioned above... As it is hard enough to get artwork to put up on the site, you shouldn't artificially limit the amount of possible contributors by only having one person with powers. I don't think that David wants to reduce the number of contributors: A contact person (or two) is good in several cases, as you already stated above, but contributions should be able by all designers (I don't think they need to upload their artwork on their own - a dedicated area in the wiki would help the website authors too). - one or two technical administrators: Christian Lohmaier and Erich Christian (with admin powers). My suggestion would be that they do limit themselves to *technical* administration alone, without any interest in the content side (this is what they currently do with the other NL sites). This should be no problem, as at least we two have other areas to work with as well :-) However I surely have an interest in the content part, since the content in the end determines what features to add to the site, etc. Focus surely is on the technical part. I don't see any reason to restrict any contribution by anybody - especially Christian and Erich have been working on website content for years at OOo. Why shouldn't they be allowed to work here too? - one contributors team, principally of English NL speakers (each member with author powers). Yes, success or failure all depends on the contributors. And this means contributor with different mother language too. Native speakers can serve as proof-readers, as this would lower the barrier for others and reduce the work load for the native speakers. IMHO, if you organize things like this, you will have a tool that is efficiently run and that will provide TDF with the most-effective marketing platform. If you allow the site to be run in a chaotic, uncontrolled manner, I think you'll lose a lot of the benefit it could otherwise bring the foundation. You describe two extreme positions - I think the truth lies in between: We need a team of people feeling responsible for the different areas of work inside the website team. These people should be mentioned as contacts for their area of expertise on the wiki - I don't think
