Re: [board-discuss] Request for TDF server to accommodate alfresco.libreoffice.org
Simon, On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:10 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: > I was hoping more for a link to the community discussions. Maybe monitor this below? http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Alfresco-documentation-brainstorming-about-the-LibreOffice-docs-team-workflow-td3999279.html -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [board-discuss] Request for TDF server to accommodate alfresco.libreoffice.org
I am requesting the Board of Directors to take an official vote on this proposal, and I'd just like to explain some of the reasons and possibilities that make me agitate for Alfresco within the LibreOffice project. Cedric Bosdonnat has been implementing CMIS connectivity within LibreOffice - the recent press release about version 3.6 makes mention of the Alfresco connectivity. This is an important hitherto-missing capability within LibreOffice for enterprise users. While the CMIS connectivity is by no means exclusively targeting Alfresco, it's worth considering that Alfresco has no other real equivalent in the Open Source realm at the moment, in its particular niche, in terms of its maturity and functionality. But communication between LibreOffice and an Alfresco repository provides capabilities that equate to Microsoft Office's interaction with a SharePoint server. This can be a significant consideration for enterprise adopters of LibreOffice. To support the current development work on CMIS connectivity for LibreOffice. it would be a good time to have an internally-operated Alfresco platform. If TDF had its own internally-operated platform, Alfresco uptake within the LibreOffice project would probably be greater than at present. Until now, it has been used/experimented with by the English docs team and a few of the localization projects, but would be a great choice for TDF's administrative needs, and for other teams such as Design. But people would undoubtedly feel better if it was self-hosted by TDF. I've long said that there are natural synergies between the LibreOffice project and the Alfresco project, and I really think it would be beneficial to both projects if a relationship was cultivated. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [board-discuss] Request for TDF server to accommodate alfresco.libreoffice.org
Additional info for the request: alfresco.libreoffice.org is being used in conjunction with media.libreoffice.org. In addition to the server itself, one would require 2 IP addresses - one for each subdomain. alfresco.libreoffice.org is where contributors log-in to do work. media.libreoffice.org is the publicly-browsable interface. It enables people to browse and download content from the Alfresco platform without logging-in. More particularly, it serves up links to content that one can post on the docs sections on the TDF wiki and libreoffice. org. Work is in progress on media.libreoffice.org to make it better adapted to the need. Jeff Potts of the Alfresco project has developed and deployed a CMIS-based browser. He is now waiting for feedback from the docs team, via me, so as to adapt it to their specific desires. For instance, it could display meta data extracted from each document (to be defined with the docs team... and any other interested users). It would also be feasible to incorporate online doc previewing. This is a feature existing within Alfresco, drawing on LibreOffice/OpenOffice, that gives you a "print preview" of a file, from within the Alfresco interface. The Alfresco Share platform at http://alfresco.libreoffice.org has long been fully completed. The CMIS browser at http://media.libreoffice.org is perfectly functional, but is still a work in progress (let's say it's 80% complete). -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [board-discuss] Request for TDF server to accommodate alfresco.libreoffice.org
Hi Simon, On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: > Just out of interest, David, is this a consensus request from the > Documentation community? The docs team leader Jean Weber would prefer to see the Alfresco platform on a TDF server, if that's what you mean. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[board-discuss] Request for TDF server to accommodate alfresco.libreoffice.org
Hi guys, As you know, I have been operating an Alfresco platform for TDF since around January 2011. This platform currently gets used by the docs team, but would be a great tool for wider adoption in the project. Given the progress with CMIS implementation within LibreOffice, I feel that it would now be a good move to have the Alfresco platform hosted on a TDF-operated server. I'm willing to handle the move across, and to continue to administer Alfresco as before (although there might well be new interest in Alfresco from other LibO contributors in the near/immediate future, and there may be more people willing to actively contribute to maintaining the tool). It would require a VPS with about 15 Gigabytes hard disk storage and 2.5 Gigabytes of memory. That's a slight increase on what I'm currently providing (12 Gb disk and 2 Gb memory) to take account of an anticipated increase in usage within the project. If traffic gets heavy, anticipate an upgrade to at least 3Gb-4Gb, but probably 2.5 will do the job fine right now. I'm currently providing a reasonably high-performance server (dedicated hardware with no other traffic but mine). I'd need full root access - certificate and password - and I'd plan to use Ubuntu 12.04. After implementation is complete, we could then revise the security of the server and scale back the access to sudo for all admins. Would TDF be agreeable to / interested in this? I may show up at the next BoD confcall to discuss the matter, unless we come to a conclusion one way or the other here instead. Anyway, all the best as ever, :-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [board-discuss] Re: Community Bylaws
Hi Charles, If you'd like someone to act as proofreader, I'll be delighted to help out... -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board: Michael Meeks
Hi Michael, Thank you for taking time out to give me those interesting answers. Lots of food for thought there, as has been the case in the past after discussing with you. I'll be arming up for work on the online help and the code base in the near future, and will pop up on IRC at that time. And I'll be coming back to the subject of design docs on the discuss list, with ideas and questions. Again, thanks for the time, and have a good conference. :-) I so much regret I won't be there with you guys. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board: Michael Meeks
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:40 PM, David Nelson wrote: > For sure, there's detailed > information about planned release dates going far into the future [1]. [1] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleasePlan -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board: Michael Meeks
Sorry, I just want to add this small comment/question to my preceding posts in this thread: I have been searching around, and I have not been able to find an official development roadmap of any kind. For sure, there's detailed information about planned release dates going far into the future [1]. But I don't find any information about what changes are planned to the general architecture of LibreOffice. If our leading devs stopped coding on LibreOffice tomorrow, not only would we not have any design documentation explaining how the beast is architectured and how it works, but we wouldn't have any idea of what kind of future plans they'd been working on implementing, and how far they'd advanced in the process. Does the engineering steering committee have any kind of formal methodologies, and any kind of formal documents that it maintains? Or is the future of LibreOffice simply stored in a myriad of post-its on your computer monitors, and in your minds, and in a tenuous web of discussion threads on the devs mailing list? -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board: Michael Meeks
Hi Michael, Thanks for the answers. I don't have time to reply in detail this week, but I will certainly be thinking about what you said. I don't intend to let go of this subject, but will be planning my next "attack" (let me register that as a joke already) on the discuss list. I'll be coming up with a concrete plan, and this will certainly take account of your kind suggestions above. Read you around, and have a good time at the conference. ;-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board
Hi Michael, On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Michael Meeks wrote: > On Sun, 2011-10-09 at 12:22 +0300, David Nelson wrote: >> Your arguments resound with the sideways logic and suave patter of a >> dishonest used car salesman combined with the moral values of a >> larcenous banker. :-D > > This is totally out of line; even with a smile. Tone is really > important to attracting and retaining developers - far more so than > documentation, and this -really- lowers it. That was a *joke*. Failed apparently. I must remember that humor doesn't work on these mailing lists. :-( However, I'm sorry you didn't seriously reply to the many serious and (IMHO) valid points I made... -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board
Cor, Apparently you enjoy an argument. :-D I wasn't going to write further to this thread, but apparently you need to have the last word, and I don't see why you should. I'll explain why below. My only mistake in writing to the candidates was that I continued in the threads they started on this SC list, and election rule #6 says, "All discussion related to the elections should be held on disc...@documentfoundation.org. Members are invited to ask questions to one or all candidates on that list." But that's maybe the candidates' fault, too, because I guess they should have posted their candidate statements to the discuss list rather than the SC list. No matter, further discussions about the original subject can be continued there. However, I just re-read the election rules and the bylaws, and there is absolutely nothing to say that the questions I asked Thorsten, Michael and Caolan were out of order. So you have absolutely no justification in trying to lay down the rules about this. This is an election, right? And the candidates are asking for our votes and invited our questions, right? So I would say I'm entitled to ask them whatever is close to my concerns and interests. And, for their part, they have the right to answer what they like, or even not to answer at all if that's their preference. The rules that we all have to keep to are the rules of courtesy, friendliness and decent behavior. From that viewpoint, I'm perfectly within bounds. So why do you feel that I'm only allowed to broach subjects that *you* feel are acceptable? Don't you feel you're a little out of line here? Because I definitely think you are. I'm rather disappointed by the development of this thread. And I don't think it was a welcome event in the first BoD election. Please allow me to remind you of some relevant clauses of the community bylaws: "There are no differences of equality between Members, even though certain Members may be granted particular powers, appointed to certain roles and responsibilities, and entrusted with access to certain Community resources. Every Member is expected to always remember that he/she is part of an egalitarian Community of which a key guiding principle is public service, and that membership is a status which is truly earned through contributive work, not something acquired by unproductive activities such as idle posting to mailing lists and forums, etc. Every Member is expected to deal with other Community Members and with our end users with courtesy, forbearance, objectivity, open-mindedness, friendliness, understanding, patience and goodwill." I don't think you're putting all that into practice. Therefore, I'd propose that we don't post further to this thread and, if you want to continue the discussion, we should continue on the discuss list. Sigh... We've lost many contributors to the project over the past 8-10 months, but I had thought that the upside of that shedding of interested community members was that communication within the project had improved to a more-mature level than the flaming discussions of the first few months... Please read the above as meant in a friendly manner, although I am exercising my right to intellectually disagree with you. :-) I regret that I won't be at the conference, or I would definitely buy you a beer to show you that there are no hard feelings on my side. ;-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > No big and high words please :) I'm disappointed, Charles. Quite disappointed... -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board
Hi Simon, On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > I am indicating that questions about development plans and intentions fall > outside the scope of questions for Board candidates as regards their > suitability for election, as the role of directors[1] does not include > development tasks. I'm inviting you to note that observation and save your > valid but out-of-scope question for later. I am not censoring you at this > point as I hope you will choose to desist voluntarily. I have put my questions to the candidates. I am hoping that they are going to answer. I object to your arbitrary judgement that my questions are out of scope. They are perfectly reasonable, perfectly friendly and perfectly courteous questions, in response to an invitation to ask questions. I hope you are not going to blemish this first election with thoughtlessness and unnecessary declarations that go against the freedom of expression that the bylaws stand for. It would have been so much simpler if the candidates had been allowed to answer for themselves. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board
Hi Simon, On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Simon Phipps wrote: > You're asking a development question that's not among the duties of a member > of the Board of Directors. You're obviously welcome to ask community members > about your project proposal, but I suggest you wait until after the election. > Appropriate questions for candidates relate to their suitability to perform > the duties of a Director of The Document Foundation[1], which definitely and > intentionally do not include developing the code or the documentation. The candidates invited questions. I am asking mine. Are you guys censoring me? -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board
Hi, On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Cor Nouws wrote: > Norbert Thiebaud wrote (09-10-11 14:25) >> >> Trying to extract election promises out of some people, on ground >> completely unrelated to the office they seek, is not going to get you >> there. > > Correct. > I would assume (have seem some mails swiftly after posting my initial > contribution to this thread) that there has been some exchange on the > usefulness of documentation and such. > Would people like to continue: IMO not on this list. Norbert, it would be good if you read things carefully and accurately. Cor, it would be good if you did not jump to conclusions. Norbert and Cor, it would be polite and in keeping with the bylaws and election rules if you allowed me to put my questions to the candidates without butting in. Thank you, guys. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board: Michael Meeks
Hi Cor, On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Cor Nouws wrote: > I see no link between the role of the BOD and individual members making > commitments to certain day to day tasks. > Is there something why I should, in your opinion? I don't see anything incongruous about asking a candidate in the Board of Directors election about what commitments he might be willing to take on if elected. In fact, what else are you supposed to ask of candidates? > When I directed some people new on LibreOffice hacking to the various > developer wiki pages, they were positively surprised. Surprised? Or do you mean shocked and amazed at how little developer documentation there is about a major software project that has been developed for so many years? :-D I'm quite surprised you seem equate the very little content on the wiki to a useful provision of design documentation. In fact, there is little more than basic tips and instructions about compiling the code and a few other related issues. There is also a very small amount of API documentation at http://docs.libreoffice.org. I'm sure you'll agree that there is absolutely no design documentation of the kind I'm discussing (see [1]). There would be many advantages to developing some. I am putting this question before Michael, Thorsten and Caolan because, AFAIK, they are full-time, senior project members (sponsored by Novell, Suse and Red Hat, if I'm not mistaken), who most certainly have the greatest knowledge about LibreOffice's design and code base. They are the ideal people to work on design documentation, and I'm volunteering to work hard alongside them (without any suggestion of payment or sponsorship). It would be a major contribution and example to the community if they were willing to provide some time and expertise for this. I don't think I need to repeat the multiple other reasons why I think it's worth devoting some time and effort to this initiative, so I'll sit back and wait to see what answers might be forthcoming from the three BoD candidates I was originally addressing. ;-) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_design_document -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board
To give you an idea of the kind of collaboration I'm proposing to our leading devs, you could read this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_design_document -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board
Hello Norbert, On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > Seriously ? for a distributed open source software, _that_ is your > doomsday scenario ? > If that were to happen, it would probably means that your immediate > problem would be survival: finding food and shelter. Computer software > will be the least of our problem for few generations... Let's not get side-tracked. The contingency could be anything. But the need for proper documentation remains. For instance, it might be needed by a group of developers wanting to start an auxiliary project investigating a different path for development than being followed by the main track. BTW, this does not necessarily mean a fork, before I hear the word used. > No amount of documentation will turn a 'non-geek' into a core dev. > Clean, well written code, with the least amount of 'trick' is the best > documentation: It is by definition accurate, complete and > authoritative. Quality that no Documentation ever equaled no matter > how much effort you put into it. No, the very best is clean, well-written code accompanied by good-quality documentation. Sorry, you will not convince me that design documentation is unnecessary. > Reading source code is not 'reverse engineering'... That is what any > software engineer do on a daily basis to maintain existing code. > It is 'open' because anyone have access to the source code and > therefore _can_ read it and figure out how it works (or doesn't). Trying to figure out from zero how a system works, because there is no documentation of the code base, is indeed reverse engineering. A software project that has no design documentation to enable a proper and facilitated understanding of its code base is *not* fully implementing the best principles of an Open Source project. Ask the FSF for an opinion about this. >> No, I apologise for insisting, and I realise that this initiative will >> take some initial footwork, and will require on-going maintenance, but >> it really should be considered to be essential work. >> >> But I firmly believe there will be a pay-off in quite a few ways. >> >> In any case, I'll be at the next couple of SC/BoD meetings to follow >> up and discuss the idea. > > There is no need for that. You can find volunteers and start working > on that without the blessing of anyone. It _is_ free software, and > _this_ is a meritocracy. > If you _do_ something in that line -- the wiki is a perfect place for > you to make that work available and gather with like minded volunteers > -- no-one will get in the way. No, I am not going to s*d off and reverse engineer the code base myself. I am asking three of our leading devs whether they would be willing to collaborate with me on this perfectly-justifiable initiative. > What do you expect the BoD to do ? issue an Edict ? Give you a > size-able budget to hire technical writer ? If your proposal attract > people from the community (our even better attract new people to it) > then your proposal will become reality, regardless of the BoD opinion. > That is how it is supposed to work. I put my question to three of our leading devs, and I will wait for them to reply to the original posts. Sorry, Norbert, but your responses do not change my views in any way. Your arguments resound with the sideways logic and suave patter of a dishonest used car salesman combined with the moral values of a larcenous banker. :-D (Above to be read tongue in cheek with a smile.) Nonetheless, have a good Sunday. ;-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board
Hi, :-) Minor addition after a few hours sleep and before starting work: This kind of design documentation is really essential for various reasons. What would happen if there was some kind of disaster and we were to lose the essential core of our lead devs for some horrible reason? We'd be scuppered. Among the other members of the LibreOffice project, is there anyone who knows how the thing works? Is there any record, useable by a non-geek, of the state of evolution of the code base? We say that people are free to take the source and do what they want with it, but - at the moment - they'd have to reverse engineer the whole code base. How "open" is that? No, I apologise for insisting, and I realise that this initiative will take some initial footwork, and will require on-going maintenance, but it really should be considered to be essential work. But I firmly believe there will be a pay-off in quite a few ways. In any case, I'll be at the next couple of SC/BoD meetings to follow up and discuss the idea. Bonne journée, les amis. :-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board
Hi Norbert, On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > But here you are taking advantage of the fact that these candidates > happen to also be core developer to corner them. Of course. :-) That's "politics" right? But seriously, this is - to me, a non-dev but someone who would dearly like to be able to step across the threshold - a crucial issue. Perhaps established devs do not see it like that. But, as a technical documentation professional, perhaps I see it in a different light. In any case, I can tell you - and you perhaps already know this well through your own work - in a commercial environment, programmers are generally expected - *contractually required* - to properly document their product, especially from the design and maintenance viewpoint. For me, the LibreOffice project can only gain in credibility and numbers of "hackers" from having design documentation that opens the doors to a much larger number of code contributors and maintainers. Fed up with hearing people demanding features that can't be implemented or that you don't have time to implement? Provide good design documentation and a) they might understand better the reasons for the non-feasibility or b) they might start offering more patches and practical contributions to implementation. I realise that some people will feel that this design documentation will be a non-optimal usage of valuable core dev time, and will hold up (only slightly) dev work. But I am convinced that it will bring real fruits in terms of contributor recruitment - more individual hackers but also enterprise/organizational contributors. I also feel it will enhance the project's image and credibility, and will set an important example in the Open Source community in general and to our audiences in particular. The availability of decent design documentation can certainly be a deciding factor for many potential organizational and enterprise adopters. > Their candidacy to the Board and the task they propose to tackle is > completely orthogonal to your proposal, the best proof is that you did > not ask such commitment from Italo. Sincerely, I feel that, as a TDF member, I have every right - duty even - to inform myself about the policies and attitudes of the candidates, and to see what their responses are to my specific requests. Voilà, with a friendly smile. :-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board
Hi Charles, On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > I'll let the candidates you have asked your question to answer. I had > one question for you though: will you be in Paris next week? Sadly not. :-( I'm wrapped up in a client project for which the deadline is the 14th, and the geographical distances between us would not allow me to make it there on time... :-( -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board
Hi Italo, On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote: > I do not think that this discussion should happen during the election > time, as it might have an influence on the election outcome based on > parametres which are not relevant for being a director (based on bylaws). I regret that I don't really agree. People are standing as candidates for the BoD and TDF members have a right to ask questions and learn what candidate's policies and attitudes are with regard to issues of concrete importance to the community... It's for sure that candidates answers to community members' questions should indeed have an influence on the outcome of the election, no? ;-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board: Michael Meeks
Jesus, I'm hoping to see from three of our leading devs who are candidates for the BoD how committed they are to *Open Source* software. ;-) Open the doors wider, and more people might come in. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board: Michael Meeks
Hi Jesus, 2011/10/8 Jesús Corrius : > I'd create a group of people with different > skill levels to work on it. I don't deny that it will not be as > effective, but I could also be a chance for wannabe developers to > learn a lot about the project while they work in benefit of the > community. This is an important initiative and really needs time from the people with the best knowledge to be a genuine success. We don't need wannabe devs guessing how it works or making mistakes due to incomplete knowledge. We need the guys at the top of the pyramid to help give us an eagle eye's view of how the software really works. This *is* priority work if the software is to be really open and if we are really to attract people to work on it. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board: Michael Meeks
Hi Jesus, 2011/10/8 Jesús Corrius : > In my opinion, I don't think it's best for the project to put some of > the most skilled developers to work in documentation, when other > developers can also do this task perfectly well. It is precisely these guys who could put the most effective work into this initiative, and probably the fastest. I'm asking the potential future members of the BoD to lead the way on this. Documentation is always considered to be some kind of unnecessary-to-optional accompaniment to software -- unless you're some poor blighter trying to understand how the thing works. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for Board: Michael Meeks
Hi Michael, Please let me start by thanking you for your past service on the SC, and your important contributions to TDF and the LibreOffice project. I would like to ask whether you would be willing to make a commitment for a term of office on the BoD. I am certain that you will assure us that you support openness of the source code of LibreOffice. But I would like to put it to you that no software source code is truly open until it has been rendered as understandable as possible to as many people as possible. This is not yet the case with the source code of LibreOffice. There is no global design documentation available to someone who would like to learn to hack it. The devs have made some progress towards documenting the code base, but only at a more-microscopic level (the API documentation at http://docs.libreoffice.org, for example). But, IMHO, it would be extremely valuable to have more-global documentation outlining the architecture and working of the code base and its various components and modules. The solution of interested individuals gleaning knowledge by lurking and asking questions on IRC is not an effective and community-oriented method of sharing knowledge. Would you be willing to commit yourself to actively work with me on developing global design documentation that will be a major asset to any party wanting to start hacking the core and developing extensions? I am thinking of something along the lines of: - a global description of the architecture of LibreOffice; - a global description of the architecture of the LibreOffice programs, Writer, Calc, Impress, Draw, Math and Base; - a listing of all the libraries and components used in the software, and an explanation of why they are used and what they do; - a description of the differences between the versions of LibreOffice for *nix, Mac and Windows; - whatever other material that your expertise as a core dev tells you is useful and needed for genuinely opening up the source code to the world in the broadest possible sense. This could usefully be a collaborative initiative actively worked on by Caolan McNamara, Thorsten Behrens and Michael Meeks. Please may I ask your thoughts about this idea and whether you would explicitly agree to be part of it? In any case, wishing you all the best and, again, thanking you for your past work for us. :-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Board of Directors Candidacy: Caolán McNamara
Hi Caolan, Please let me start by thanking you for your past service on the SC, and your important contributions to TDF and the LibreOffice project. I would like to ask whether you would be willing to make a commitment for a term of office on the BoD. I am certain that you will assure us that you support openness of the source code of LibreOffice. But I would like to put it to you that no software source code is truly open until it has been rendered as understandable as possible to as many people as possible. This is not yet the case with the source code of LibreOffice. There is no global design documentation available to someone who would like to learn to hack it. The devs have made some progress towards documenting the code base, but only at a more-microscopic level (the API documentation at http://docs.libreoffice.org, for example). But, IMHO, it would be extremely valuable to have more-global documentation outlining the architecture and working of the code base and its various components and modules. The solution of interested individuals gleaning knowledge by lurking and asking questions on IRC is not an effective and community-oriented method of sharing knowledge. Would you be willing to commit yourself to actively work with me on developing global design documentation that will be a major asset to any party wanting to start hacking the core and developing extensions? I am thinking of something along the lines of: - a global description of the architecture of LibreOffice; - a global description of the architecture of the LibreOffice programs, Writer, Calc, Impress, Draw, Math and Base; - a listing of all the libraries and components used in the software, and an explanation of why they are used and what they do; - a description of the differences between the versions of LibreOffice for *nix, Mac and Windows; - whatever other material that your expertise as a core dev tells you is useful and needed for genuinely opening up the source code to the world in the broadest possible sense. This could usefully be a collaborative initiative actively worked on by Caolan McNamara, Thorsten Behrens and Michael Meeks. Please may I ask your thoughts about this idea and whether you would explicitly agree to be part of it? In any case, wishing you all the best and, again, thanking you for your past work for us. :-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Candidacy for a BoD seat
Hi Thorsten, Please let me start by thanking you for your past service on the SC, and your important contributions to TDF and the LibreOffice project. I would like to ask whether you would be willing to make a commitment for a term of office on the BoD. I am certain that you will assure us that you support openness of the source code of LibreOffice. But I would like to put it to you that no software source code is truly open until it has been rendered as understandable as possible to as many people as possible. This is not yet the case with the source code of LibreOffice. There is no global design documentation available to someone who would like to learn to hack it. The devs have made some progress towards documenting the code base, but only at a more-microscopic level (the API documentation at http://docs.libreoffice.org, for example). But, IMHO, it would be extremely valuable to have more-global documentation outlining the architecture and working of the code base and its various components and modules. The solution of interested individuals gleaning knowledge by lurking and asking questions on IRC is not an effective and community-oriented method of sharing knowledge. Would you be willing to commit yourself to actively work with me on developing global design documentation that will be a major asset to any party wanting to start hacking the core and developing extensions? I am thinking of something along the lines of: - a global description of the architecture of LibreOffice; - a global description of the architecture of the LibreOffice programs, Writer, Calc, Impress, Draw, Math and Base; - a listing of all the libraries and components used in the software, and an explanation of why they are used and what they do; - a description of the differences between the versions of LibreOffice for *nix, Mac and Windows; - whatever other material that your expertise as a core dev tells you is useful and needed for genuinely opening up the source code to the world in the broadest possible sense. This could usefully be a collaborative initiative actively worked on by Caolan McNamara, Thorsten Behrens and Michael Meeks. Please may I ask your thoughts about this idea and whether you would explicitly agree to be part of it? In any case, wishing you all the best and, again, thanking you for your past work for us. :-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Fwd: [tdf-announce] TDF 2011 Election: Voting Credentials Sent
OK, thanks, Italo. :-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Fwd: [tdf-announce] TDF 2011 Election: Voting Credentials Sent
Hi, On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote: > Ten people: seven board members, plus three deputies But we're only voting for the board members, right? The board members choose the deputies, no? -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Fwd: [tdf-announce] TDF 2011 Election: Voting Credentials Sent
Hi Simon, How many members are we actually voting for? The bylaws say 9, but I seem to remember that the Germany-based foundation would only have 7 members. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Base - a new mailing list?
Hi, On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: > Why not find a way to integrate connectivity to all the major databases such > as mysql and MsSQL servers? Yes, that would be great indeed. I can hear Michael Meeks thinking, "Well start developing the code then." Anyway, I think it would be a great pity to give up on Base, because it has the potential to be an enormous power feature of the LibreOffice suite. As a general thing in the LibreOffice project, I think we need to think seriously about a determined recruitment drive, for Base and for various other areas of the project. Just waiting for people to volunteer does not seem to be enough to cater to our needs for contributors. Marketing guys, can you give this consideration? -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Off-topic - please move to discuss@
Hi Florian, I perfectly understand your point. It is not helpful when you declare a thread to be a vote among SC members and then people jump in with "friendly and encouraging comments", because then the SC can't vote properly and unambiguously. Maybe label vote threads as "SC VOTE:"? Then people should definitely refrain from jumping-in on those threads. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Off-topic - please move to discuss@ (was: Re: Base - a new mailing list?)
Hi Thorsten, On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > Tom, Ian, please move the discussion over to the discuss@ list. If > there's any code questions (and there were people interested in the > long-dormant postgres-connector), that should go to > libreoff...@lists.freedesktop.org. > > Thanks, > > -- Thorsten You'll probably read what I replied to Florian about this being off-topic to the SC list. Maybe this is a matter of community members wanting to be able to discuss an issue with the SC, and the SC discuss list being the place to do it? I know there are no easy, immediate solutions, but there are people who would like to see the SC regard this Base issue as being something important to deal with. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Off-topic - please move to discuss@
Hi Florian, > this is the *wrong* list to discuss about base. *Please* move the discussion > over to discuss@, as Thorsten asked. Well, maybe it's not really so off-topic, IMHO. I think it's an issue that Tom - and maybe even others - really want to put before the SC. Every time I read about Base in the lists, people seem to be complaining that not only is it not improving or being developed from release to release but that it's even regressing over time. Yet, IMHO, having a database component in LibO is a tremendous asset, both functionality-wise and marketing-wise. While I'm sure that people understand that the SC can't create resources (manpower or financial) out of nothing, there is nonetheless a not-inconsiderable number of people that would like to see the SC regard Base as an urgent issue for which to try and find *some* solution: fix it? Bring in another database product with an active developer community to replace it? 2 cents. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] List discussion & purpose
Hi Florian, On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote: > I think it has been discussed in public rather often that there is a private > list where all the steering committee members are on, and that there are > private phone calls sometimes. > > We never planned to have things in secret, so sorry if that impression has > grown. Perhaps it would be good to list the private mailing lists existing, so that interested people can send a request to a relevant human being for a subscription. Otherwise, some people might never learn that they even exist. After discussion threads on private MLs and after private calls held by the SC and/or relevant project teams (such as the sysadmins), perhaps it might be a solution to publish an advisory on the tdf-discuss list explaining as much as possible about the subject of the call/thread, and as much as possible about the results of the discussions? That way, at least people would be informed that they have taken place, rather than the community possible being totally unaware of such communication. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] decision on screenshots
Hi Florian,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Florian Effenberger
wrote:
> based on the feedback, this would be my proposal to vote on:
I suppose the minor corrections below fall in the category of the
"beauty corrections" you mentioned, but the SC's decision might be
clearer for some people if the grammar is perfect. FWIW, I'd agree
with Tom and Paulo that the second para ("The Steering Committee
acknowledges that there is...") serves no purpose. So that would give:
"Screenshots for documentation, website and marketing should
preferably be taken on GNU/Linux, but may also be taken on any other
operating system.
The Steering Committee recommends a consistent visual appearance (e.g.
theming and branding) for the screenshots taken on the selected
operating system. It is up to the LibreOffice community how to achieve
that consistency."
HTH.
--
David Nelson
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] List discussion & purpose
Hi, I find this list to be a very useful point of contact with the SC. If people avoid using it for other purposes than discussions in which there is a genuine utility in involving the SC then SC members will be encouraged to read it regularly and properly, and the list will indeed serve its true purpose. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] funding for system operations meeting
Hi Florian, OK, thanks for the answers. And don't forget to eat lots of fruit and sleep regularly. ;-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] funding for system operations meeting
Hi Florian, On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote: > You know, complaining is easy. I myself do nearly a half-day job for TDF, > next to my real life, and I'm a bit allergic to generalization. If there is > a specific topic that does not work out, please ping us again and let us > know. But saying in general, we are totally closed and nothing works is a > bit unfair, David. You know better that it isn't that bad. I know you work tremendously hard for the project, and you have a lot of respect and gratitude from me from that, which you know I have expressed on- and off-list various times. Let me take the chance to say again that, without your *personal* efforts, this project would probably fall apart. Literally. No, this is in no way directed towards you personally. Nor do I ever say that "everything is bad". But that doesn't mean that one should not point out undesirable tendencies (in a measured and rational manner) before they get to be ingrained habits. And I do understand that, in a FOSS project, we always have to take account of people's time limitations. However, when one is managing the project's key infrastructure as a rather closed group, one does have a bit of a commitment to especial responsiveness, within reasonable limits. In any case, it's certainly what I try to apply with my own piece of infrastructure. My point is that the sysadmins team is perhaps not developing the right culture in terms of openness and participation, and that it would be good to open it up a bit. This is my 2 cents, others may not see things like that, but... For the particular questions I could have raised, I'll mail you off-list. In which case, I perfectly accept that it will take you time to consider and respond, because I know you have a lot on your plate. Once again, you definitely should not read all the above posts as any kind of criticism of you personally. You should probably be aware by now that I hold your work for the project in very high regard. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] funding for system operations meeting
Hi Florian, On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote: > It was solely for those having root access, not for web site managers, as > the technical topics were in-depth and detailed. Yes, well given that you have root access to my server, it would have been good for me to talk to you about some "in-depth and detailed" issues. > We definitely plan to have open meetings, but this meeting was really > necessary to make the sysadmins work together, so it was reserved for this > group. "Work together"? And with the outside world, too, I hope! I posted a request/proposition to the admins on the website ML a week ago and still did not get even an answer. I notice sometimes that getting some attention and cooperation from the libreoffice.org admins is like trying to get blood out of a stone (and I'm not just talking about my own posts, others seem to get the same mileage sometimes). So I hope you at least talked about that kind of in-depth issue too. ;-) Precisely the problem seems to be that the sysadmins are a closed group, unlike other teams in the project, and simply don't seem to work in the same way as other teams. They might be managing key infrastructure but it's not a reason for working differently - in fact quite the opposite, they should be especially attentive to working openly.... it's not a good tendence, IMO. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] funding for system operations meeting
Hi, I've no particular opinion about the funding, but I did regret having missed the opportunity to have met the project's sysadmins, and I was disappointed that it was a thing not decided with the knowledge and possible involvement of the international community of web resource contributors, but with only discussion between German members. While I recognize that there are many German sysadmins in the project, I do hope that it's not going to become a habit that things be organized purely between them, because there are actually other people working on webby things. Please do remember the spirit and intentions of the Community Bylaws. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] funding for system operations meeting
Hi Florian, On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote: > as some of you know, the TDF admins had a system operations meeting in > Munich about one month ago: > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/System_Operations/Meeting_2011-01 *Some* being the operative word... I never heard about this... Was it publicized at all on the website mailing list and I missed it? In any case, if you do another one, could you maybe give me a heads-up? It would have been interesting to meet other people administering infrastructure for TDF. TIA if so, ;-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-documentation] wikipedia
Hi Tom, On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Tom Davies wrote: > Hi :) > I found a page about Calc in Wikipedia > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org_Calc > but it's heavily branded as the OpenOffice version. Writer has 2 pages. One > for OpenOffice and 1 for LibreOffice. > > Would it be better to move towards having just 1 page for each application and > then link to OpenOffice, LibreOffice or NeoOffice when appropriate? Specific > pages such as the OpenOffice Calc page could then be extremely short and very > specific since most of the stuff would already be either in the main > cross-product page for Calc or in Apache's documentation? > > I imagine each of the 2 lists will diverge in particular points but i don't > think everything needs to be repeated on both lists. > Regards from > Tom :) My humble 2 cents would be that there should be an equivalent page to this one that covers LibreOffice Calc alone. I know that people often seem to refer to LibreOffice and OpenOffice.org as kind-of twin products, but I'm betting that this will be less and less the case as time goes by and differences between them accumulate. Would someone (maybe yourself?) feel like tackling that task on Wikipedia? -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Call for SC-vote: Using (Windows) Screnshots in TDF materials
Hi, My apologies for interrupting an SC vote in progress, but I feel the motion itself is somewhat ambiguous... Either screenshots taken under Windows are allowed or else they're not, but it leaves room for a lot of unfair twisting if (in the event that the ultimate decision was a "+1") you have this "caveat" that "screenshots on GNU/Linux should be the default ones". May I put it to the SC that it would be better in the motion was "Screenshots for documentation, web graphics and marketing materials for LibreOffice and TDF may be taken on any computing platform, notably Linux, but also Windows, Macintosh and other operating systems and graphical user interfaces." This would be unambiguous and unequivocal... -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Hi André, 2011/7/13 André Schnabel : > I fully agree with Italo here. The discussion here at the list (and even you > comment right now) is focused on the legal implications and what the SC > would think of it. Your wording for the agenda item is much broader and > requests a general decision on the screenshots independent from possible > legal implications. I've actually worded the issue into the real questions coming to the fore from past discussions. The motion is clear and could be resolved easily and unambiguously. > For agenda item 2: a very basic rule for questions to the SC should be that > the question should be crystal clear and not be changed half a day before > the SC's decision. At the moment I don't even know anymore what the actual > question is. The real question is basically what I've submitted as the motion for discussion. And it does reflect the two choices that seem to have been voiced in past ML threads. I'm perplexed. ;-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Hi Italo, Drew, On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote: > As a member of the SC, I would personally avoid to have the SC discuss this > issue (which, in my opinion, is not an issue). This is something that teams > should discuss internally, and I see the SC get into the discussion only if > something unreasonable happens. > > I will confirm and support this choice during the SC meeting. I noted your change to the agenda item: "(Italo: I do not like the way this item for discussion has been worded, according to what has been discussed in the mailing list)" I was invited to add an agenda item for discussion, and this is the subject that I'm hoping that the SC will clarify, which arises from multiple past discussions about Windows screenshots. Given the claimed legal sensitivity of the issue, and the claimed legal liability arising from use of Windows screenshots, I feel it is indeed a valid matter to put before the SC for some official guidance/decisions. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Reminder: Next SC call in 4,5 hours
Hi, On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 6:11 PM, David Nelson wrote: > Am I right that the SC call did not start yet? Or did the conference > room number change (53 71 38)? Sorry, I got the wrong time... it's in 50 mins. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Reminder: Next SC call in 4,5 hours
Hi, Am I right that the SC call did not start yet? Or did the conference room number change (53 71 38)? -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Hi, So I'd just like to bring this thread back to its real topic: platforms used to take screenshots for documentation, website images and marketing material. I updated the SC confcall agenda item, proposing this motion for discussion: "Do we want to see screenshots taken indifferently from Windows, Mac and *nix used in LibreOffice documentation, website images and marketing material, to demonstrate our true cross-platform vocation? Or, do we want to impose preferred use of Linux/Gnome for screenshots and only accept screenshots from other OS's and GUIs when strictly necessary for particular cases?" -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Hi, So the subject of acceptability of screenshots of LibreOffice products taken on Windows is on today's SC confcall agenda, and I'll be there to listen/contribute to the discussion. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Hi Italo, *, On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote: > In my opinion, documentation screenshots can be entirely Linux (unless there > is a specific feature on a different OS). My feeling about this (and I *believe* that Jean Weber agrees) is that documentation contributors should have the option of contributing screenshots indifferently from Mac, Linux or Windows - although it would probably be preferable to maintain consistency within a given guide. Firstly, this makes it clear that LibreOffice is mult-platform and consistent across platforms. Secondly, we want to keep the barrier for new contributors as low as possible, and not *oblige* them to install new software in order to work in documentation. This way, hopefully, we can get a lot more people involved. These are the key reasons why I'm asking for the SC to take a position, because we've been meeting quite a bit of opposition from a relatively small number of people for quite some time now (who want screenshots taken under Linux only), and it would be nice to get the issue cleared up one way or another. I could point out that I'm a daily Linux user myself, but I don't think we should be dogmatic about it. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Hi Florian, On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote: > we have a public session every week. Oh, sure, but Michael seemed to feel that this might be better discussed in a private session? Would that be the intention? I can sort-of understand that, given the kind of debate that might ensue? In any case, I'll add it to the next agenda and thank you for your permission for that. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Hi Florian, On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote: > feel free to add the topic to the agenda in the wiki. It would be good, > however, if someone would attend the call who has insight on the topic. > I, for example, didn't follow the thread closely. OK, I'll add it to the next agenda and would be there to listen, and to present both sides of the issue, if invited. But if it's going to be a private session then maybe non-SC members won't be party to the discussions? -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] wording on TDF website
Hi, Well how about "meritocratic community created by" then? -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Request for changes of Membership Committee
Hi, 2011/7/11 André Schnabel : > Dear SC members, > > as today's MC meeting had to be postponed again we (Sophie and me) like to > suggest following changes for the MC: > > 1. approve all current deputies of the MC plus David Emmerich Jourdain (who > volunteered as deputiy but has not yet been approved) as full MC members. > (so the MC will have 6 members in total - curent deputies and David of > courrse need to agree on this ) > > 2. approve that the MC should decide on applications in consensus with a > needed qurom of 2/3rd (means currently 4 members). > > > Reviewing membership applications is (imho) one of the key tasks for our > community - so the current situation is quite unfortunate. Sophie and me > agreed, that we should not take a decision if only two members are in a > meeting. IMHO, it would be better if the MC were to be composed of more than 4 members... I feel that at least 6 to 9 members would ensure better processing of MC business, and would ensure better quality decision-taking (better assurance of impartiality, etc.). -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Hi, On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Michael Meeks wrote: > published. So, ultimately, I guess the SC would need to make a call on > this in a private session if it was asked to. I didn't get time to bring this subject up at the last SC meeting, but I would indeed like to submit a request to the SC to take a decision on this issue in a private session. IMHO, it would be good to put the subject to rest once and for all. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] wording on TDF website
Hi, I'm assuming this the item you're talking about: "It is an independent self-governing meritocratic Foundation, created by leading members of the OpenOffice.org Community." My suggestion would be to replace the words "meritocratic Foundation, created by" with "meritocratic organization created by". Maybe that would solve the problem? (Did you notice the removed comma, which was unneeded?) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Hi, I won't repeat what I said in my previous post but, basically, my interpretation would be exactly the same as Simon's. I see the pages Alex cited as simply protecting Microsoft's own products - such as Office, etc. - in a perfectly legitimate manner. I don't see them as preventing the LibreOffice project from taking screenshots of its own software for the purposes of documentation and website content. Alex, Tom, *, would you happen have any other content to put forward to support your POV, please? Thank you for your time and trouble if so. I think this is a good opportunity to put this issue to rest, one way or another, once and for all, by asking the SC to adopt a position. :-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Hi Tom, *, @Tom: thank you very much for your kind words and your moral support and practical help regarding Alfresco. However, usage of Alfresco is really a bit off-topic for bringing to the attention of the SC. Alfresco usage/non-usage is more a question of natural, Darwinian survival/non-survival, and the SC would probably not want to get involved in that :-D @Tom, *: However, the question of acceptability of Windows screenshots in LibreOffice documentation and web pages has more relevance. As Tom explains, the issue has been discussed a number of times, with various people perceiving a risk in the usage of screenshots of our product taken on a Windows OS, and with various other people dismissing any such risk as implausible. My own 2 cents on the matter would be this: "I've carefully read the pages put forward as pointing-up the problem with taking screenshots under Windows, and I must admit that I don't interpret them in a way that poses any risk to LibreOffice. In the cited pages, IMHO, Microsoft is legitimately protecting itself against screenshots of its own products' splashscreens, dialog boxes and windows being hijacked to publicize other products. It is not trying to limit use of the Windows platform by third-party products, nor documentation of those products. It actually spends a lot of time and effort promoting Windows as a development platform for third-party products. And the Internet is *full* of screenshots of Open Source and closed source products taken on Windows. What's more, if it *did* take action against an OS project for simply taking screenshots of the aforesaid OS product on the Windows platform, it would probably score a considerable "own goal" of negative publicity in public relations terms. So I think that Microsoft would be very unlikely to do so. And, even if it *did* do so, in what court/jurisdiction could it make such action stick? Under US federal law? In certain US states? I'm not convinced they'd succeed. In European courts? I'm even less convinced they'd succeed. And if they *did* succeed, what could they possibly win other than a cease-and-desist order? I really cannot imagine them winning damages as such. And, in either case, it would truly be a Pyrrhic victory in terms of image damage. So, IMHO, it's rather implausible. This is a subject that has been discussed a number of times over the past months. I think I'll ask for it to be discussed at a forthcoming SC confcall. It would be very convenient for docs team contributors to be able to take screenshots under Windows, as well as on Mac and Linux. Plus it would contribute to making it clear to users that LibreOffice is a truly multi-platform package, and not a niche product that seems to mainly target Linux. (I say this as a daily Ubuntu user and total Linux lover.)" Please may I request this subject be discussed at the next SC meeting? (Or at your earliest possible convenience?) If you accept the subject for the agenda, I will be there to listen in and, if invited, debate the angles. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] grammar mistake in the bylaws
Hi Florian, On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 18:45, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Each organization *appoints* a single representative to the Advisory Board > based on a yearly fee to be determined by the BoD. Correct. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] proposed bylaws changes
Hi Michael, On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 23:20, Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi David, > > Thanks for these, really makes it cleaner, I applied them all - they > seem un-controversial etc. Cool, thanks. :-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] FYI: Apache Incubator is now voting
Hi, On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 23:09, Greg Stein wrote: > * "non-binding" votes are from other participants in the conversation. > Their "votes" are allowed as a measure and gauge over the broader > community opinion, even though they will not actually be tallied in > the final ballot. It's true that this could be a good way to "take the temperature" in the community about issues being voted on... Maybe our LibreOffice SC could think about this before the bylaws are fully stabilized? -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] proposed bylaws changes
HI, On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 22:22, David Nelson wrote: > Otherwise, I was only going to add a clause about transferring TDF's > funds into my personal bank account every 6 months... For those of you that didn't realise, that was a joke... Someone just mailed me off-list who didn't seem quite sure about that... (rofl) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] proposed bylaws changes
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:28, Charles-H. Schulz >> When you've made your edits, can I have permission to proofread and >> make minor grammar/spelling corrections? >> > > > Sure :) > > Charles. Cool. I'll watch this thread and write back before starting work and after finishing work. :-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] proposed bylaws changes
Hi, When you've made your edits, can I have permission to proofread and make minor grammar/spelling corrections? -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] About elections
Hi, I remember that, some time ago, Michael Meeks suggested OpenSTV as a tool (http://www.openstv.org/). -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Recent incomplete or non-existent records of SC meetings
Hi Norbert, :-) On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 23:12, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > That must have been a recent glitch, because I do recall having listen > to these recording in their entirety a the time... > actually I think that is a problem on your side. I just re-listen to > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/1/16/Talkyoo-537138-2011-04-30-1473097.mp3 > and it is fine and complete I have an excellent Internet connection, and looking at some of the file sizes tells me that they really are incomplete... But, even putting that aside, the lack of notes at some meetings and the falling attendance are both indisputable... David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Recent incomplete or non-existent records of SC meetings
Hi, :-) In addition to the recording of the SC meeting of 2011-05-12 [1] being incomplete (which is a pity since it contained some *interesting* discussion about the Brazilian community and about the MC), the same also applies to: * 2011-05-06 [2] * 2011-04-30 [3] * 2011-04-21 [4] * 2011-04-06 [5] * 2011-03-26 (no recording at all) * 2011-03-16 [6] All the recordings are cut short, with some containing very little audio. This is a pity since no notes were taken during some of those meetings, meaning that there is no public record at all - including of the open question time at the ends of the meetings, during which community members have the chance to bring subjects up for discussion with the SC. Another aspect that is somewhat sad is the recent fall in attendance at meetings, and the discussion about possibly greater use of e-mail as a channel for debate and decision-taking - I am hoping that this *does* mean open communication on the SC Discuss list, and not some kind of non-public process... While I do realise that people also have other areas of life to take care of, please can the SC reassure us that this is not going to be a gradual and chronic deterioration in the high standards of governance laid out in the bylaws? [1] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Talkyoo-537138-2011-05-12-1492250.mp3 [2] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/c/cb/Talkyoo-537138-2011-05-06-1483340.mp3 [3] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/1/16/Talkyoo-537138-2011-04-30-1473097.mp3 [4] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/4/4e/Talkyoo-537138-2011-04-21-1462577.mp3 [5] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/9/9c/Talkyoo-537138-2011-04-06-1438151.mp3 [6] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/7/75/Talkyoo-537138-2011-03-16-1403977.mp3 David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] SC Meeting 2011-05-12 recording incomplete
Hi, :-) The recording of the SC meeting of 2011-05-12 placed on the wiki is incomplete. Please, would it be possible to have the recording of the entire meeting posted? David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] proofreading the German bylaws
Hi, :-) On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 02:20, Florian Effenberger wrote: > hm... why would this need adaption? I guess the paragraph was meant to > support those people who joined us in the early days, i.e. three months > after we started TDF and LibreOffice. That's what I remember, too. > Anyone recalls when the bylaws had been finalized in their current state? > How much time between this date and December 31st (as mentioned in the > bylaws) did people have? IIRC, it was around December 10 or shortly before. > If we approved the bylaws shortly before or even after December 31st, it > makes sense to adapt that date, but if not, I'm a bit undetermined, if we > need it at all... the rationale behind it was that people joining TDF early > would have a "benefit", IMHO. My 2 cents would be that it's not fair on new contributors who started with the project after the project launch to forever give free entrance to people from OOo. David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Fwd: [libreoffice-website] General appeal on communication style (was: Re: Litmus to remove form the main site)
Hi Nino, :-)
I have not read your entire post above, but frankly I consider this kind of
discussion unsuitable, off-topic, misrepresenting the facts and personally
unpleasant. I had thought that the "atmosphere" on the website had calmed
down in comparison to the beginning of the year but it seems that the
lessons have not been learned.
MC, SC, could we perhaps hear your thoughts about this?
David Nelson
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 21:09, Nino Novak wrote:
> David,
>
> please bear with me as I am not an native English speaker, so therefore
> I might pick the wrong expression or idiom from time to time.
>
> My mail is intended to disclose possible issues of mutual
> misunderstanding. Of course, maybe I'm somtimes exaggerating a bit but
> look at it as a caricature. My goal in the end is to speak in favor of
> a - let's say - smooth way of collaborative communication.
>
> On Tuesday 26 April 2011 12:47, David Nelson wrote:
>
>> Any points of
>> view I have posted have been perfectly rational and sensible.
>
> Hopefully, in a minute you will be able to recognize that people could
> have a different perception of your post and action.
>
>
>> And I
>> am certainly not engaged in any "personal struggle" with Sophie or
>> anyone else. :-D
>
> Hm. So my perception is - or at least might be - rather different from
> yours. Let me show you my thinking, so you can follow it's rationale
> and thus possibly understand the different perceptions.
>
>
>> Would you maybe like to post links to ML posts supporting what you
>> say? Your words seem to be at odds with the true facts...
>
> Let's concentrate at this[1] thread, I just numbered the successive
> incidents resp. mails in temporal/thread order.
>
> 0) Pre-condition (fact): Someone (assumably you, but does not matter who
> for this meta-considerations) has put the Litmus link on the website.
> So now, it is there.
>
> 1) Sophie finds the link and requests to remove it. She gives some
> explanations for her request. How I read her mail:
> Fact: "There is a Litmus link on the website."
> Reasonning: "The link is wrong as it impairs work at the moment" (or
> similar).
> Appeal: "Please remove it."
> Self-reveal: "I'm feeling in charge for Litmus on the one hand, and for
> informing the community about it on the other. And I'm a constructive
> community member and I'm taking care for good collaboration, too. I
> therefore want the link to be removed it but cannot do it myself" (or
> don't want to or what ever)
> What she tells (me) about her relationship to the community: "I care for
> you as a community, and I have substantial knowledge in this matter.
> Now, I'm asking for technical help in a community of equals."
>
> 2) K-J removes the link (presumably he accepts Sophie's reasonning) and
> writes a response mail.
> New Fact: ("Wrong") link is removed.
> Self-reveal: "I'm feeling in charge for the website and I am a
> constructive & collaborative community member, therefore I'm taking the
> task. I'm helping another member."
> Relationship "We are a collaborative community of domain experts"
> Appeal: "Please correct me if I've missunderstood something, otherwise
> please approve my action"
>
> 3) You re-install the link without reasonning.
> Fact: Link is visible again.
> Reasonning: - none given -
> Self-reveal: "I think, the link is ok." but also: "I do not need to
> argue, I just (can) act"
> Relationship (maybe a bit caricaturized): "I am the boss, and you are
> just unimportant: what is done by the community does not bother me. I
> am acting from a superior position. At least, my position is superior
> to Sophie's and K-J's, so I can revert their actions without giving
> further arguments."
> Appeal: "Please accept my superior position and stop acting against me"
>
> So from this (my) perception, your behavior does not appear to support
> the "common goal" first and foremost. It rather appears mainly intended
> to regulate mastery, the "who is in the driver's seat" question. At
> least in my eyes, acting in this way does not look rational, neither
> sensible. It looks like a pure interpersonal action, revenge, bashing,
> fight, whatever you like to call it.
>
> Hopefully, you can follow my cartoonish explanations and see that it
> could give rise to my interpretation as interpersonal issue. Or at
> least as communicational problem.
>
>> Or shall we just cut this thread short? I'm personally bored with
>> this kind of
Re: [steering-discuss] Suggested blog about MC work and philosophy
Hi, :-) I took the liberty of proofreading the post a bit and editing slightly. See below, plus attached ODT file. HTH. David Nelson TDF has new members The opening of the membership process was announced last Tuesday (http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/04/19/the-document-foundation-is-open-for-members/), and we already received lots of applications. Sophie did a great job scanning those and preparing the list for our first Membership Commitee meeting. So, on Friday, we processed 59 applications (roughly all we received up to Thursday midnight). We are happy to tell you that we felt able to approve 23 applications immediately. For 22 more applications, we need to take a closer look. We will ask the contacts named in the applications for verification, scan our systems – such as Git, Pootle, the Wiki, Alfresco and the mailing lists for appreciable contributions. Please bear with us while we collect the information to enable us to take an informed decision. Unfortunately we had to decline 14 applications – in almost all cases, this was because no information was given about current contributions. However, these people are welcome to send in a further application with appropriate information. All applicants will be informed within the coming days about the status of their application (we are just preparing some mail templates for this). We will also publish a list of accepted TDF members on our website. What we learned from some of the comments and mails that came in is that we will have to review our application form. Some phrases are not very clear (like the "contact information"), and we should provide a link to our bylaws so that you can check that you meet the membership criteria as well as read about our members' rights and responsibilities. We also received some mail messages asking why we need a membership application at all. Let me try to answer to some of those comments. Question: "Does the mean that unless we are 'members' of the 'Community' we are not allowed to represent and promote LibreOffice at trade shows, or to provide support to users?" Answer: This is not the case at all. Everyone is welcome to contribute to LibreOffice and TDF, and this can be done in various ways. Our Community Bylaws list some ways to contribute, but this list is not necessarily exhaustive. The Membership Committee will also evaluate other ways of contributing (we anticipate that there are many other ways that we even did not think of yet). So, everyone is welcome to contribute and the status of official membership is our way to acknowledge these contributions. Question: "Before the fork, members of the Community Council were elected by the members of the community. The only requirement to be a member was to have created an account on the OpenOffice.org website. So what's the situation now?" Answer: There are two things two consider. First, only one seat on the OOo Community Council was directly elected by the community (defined as above). Most seats were elected by project leads, who had to be elected or appointed beforehand. So the OOo process is also not open to everyone. Even worse, the OOo process did not give equal rights to contributing members, because of the non-egalitarian system of project leads. We at TDF are sticking closely to the rule that there is no difference of equality among accepted members. Second, if we allowed just anyone to get voting power "with one click", this would completely invalidate our philosophy of merit. Why should anybody work hard and give continuous user support, and then just see his/her voice overruled by people who "just clicked the right button"? This does indeed not mean that we will ignore the voices of our user base. Those people who give support and are in close contact to end user are especially encouraged to represent user concerns. Question: "I refuse to apply for membership in the community. I do not feel that anyone has the right to judge me when they know nothing about me. So?" Answer: This is indeed very unfortunate, and a misunderstanding of what the Membership Committee's is intended to accomplish. We want to get to know you so that we can properly and fairly process your application. The information we ask for is intended to help us with this task. My experience is that everybody who is contributing to a community is known within the said community. Our obligation as the Membership Commitee is to seek counsel from the community so that we can arrive at the right decision. The next meeting of the Membership Committee will be in about one week, and we'll be looking forward to receiving your applications. :-) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] proofreading the German bylaws
Hi, :-) I had another read through the bylaws, and there is one section that might be usefully updated: Continuity of Membership. The clause granting merit for past OOo contributions and qualifying former OOo people is surely past now? Does that clause still have utility? David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: LibreOffice Community starts 50, 000 Euro challenge for setting-up its foundation
Hi Alex, :-) On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 19:27, Alexander Thurgood wrote: > Le 16/02/11 13:18, Florian Effenberger a écrit : > > Hi Florian, > > I see that this page exists translated into German and Spanish. If I > wanted to provide a translation into French, how would I go about doing > that ? At present, I have no access as author to the TDF website, and > don't see any real need to have one. Couldn't I just send someone the > translation ? If you like, you can send it to me and I'll post it Monday or Tuesday. 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] SC Vote on first members of TDF
Hi, :-) I really like this open vote - it's just the kind of openness I was longing to see when we worked on the bylaws. I know it's maybe not suitable for every single vote, but it would be good to see it for as many as possible. Congratulations, and thank you for this one more step forward towards the community's organization. Viva LibreOffice! 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] About Membership Committee
Hi, :-) On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 20:45, Andre Schnabel wrote: > I'd guess sooner or later three MC members will not be enough to process > all the applications and review all types of activities. If you need a hand, please feel free to invite me. 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] On forums for LibreOffice
Hi Charles, :-) In that case, would it be a good idea to have a link to them in the text of the "Get Help" page? If so, can you give the links you suggest? 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] About Membership Committee
Hi, :-) "assign one MC-member to each application who is in charge to review the application (this should be based on the work area of the applicant. e.g. Fridrich might review developer's applications, Sophi UX, design, work in locale teams, André does l10n, QA, website)" Documentation team contributors are currently in disgrace? ;-) 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] help in blog moderating
Hi Florian, :-) I could volunteer as well, if you like. 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] Re: [libreoffice-website] Hassles and woes - and how to solve them
Hi Florian, Steering Commitee, world, :-) Really great job, Florian. Blogging like [1] this brings home to people the human side of the SC members (we used to think you were all wizards sitting on a cloud in the sky, who could accomplish miracles on first demand). Blogging is also a great chance to set forth and explain the reasons for many aspects of TDF policies and decisions, and for explaining your thoughts and feelings in a place that is rather more sticky and durable than a mailing list post. It also makes the TDF blog a hot place to visit regularly for "inside" news and views. I would really encourage *other* members of the SC to also blog in the same way: Charles, Michael, Thorsten, Italo, and all of you. I really feel that it is one *important key* to good communications and community cultivation. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this post, and would love to see blog posts coming at the rate of about 3 a week... That would only be one blog post per SC member every once in a while... Could be very beneficial to community life? 2 cents. ;-) [1] http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/01/22/hassles-and-woes-and-how-to-solve-them/ 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] connecting external services to our domain
Hi Andreas, :-) IMHO, the odfauthors.org software is far from being an ideal tool for the LibreOffice docs team. A) The odfauthors.org software is a product of a past time, when leading-edge systems like Alfresco had not yet reached maturity, that does not have all the features and power of a full-blooded content development system like Alfresco: a mature version control system; powerful and sophisticated workflow management; powerful content search capability able to search within the managed content; built-in discussion system that lets you anchor a discussion on a particular content object; easy updating and uploading of content from directly within the LibreOffice applications, via the Alfresco plugin for OOo/LibO; etc. B) The odfauthors.org software is a hybrid, one-off, custom application without any community taking its development forward. The odfauthors.org system is a software dead-end, based upon a CMS that is not very widely used, for which little technical support is available except from a small group of developers. Alfresco has an entire community behind it. C) The odfauthors.org software does not have the capabilities of Alfresco to cater to the LibreOffice project's future needs for a sophisticated product that can integrate closely with the project's other development systems. Alfresco can provide a powerful platform for the production and maintenance of developer documentation: API manuals, etc. The odfauthors.org software cannot compete with it feature-wise: it is a fairly manual system that is now dated. However, Andreas, please may I respectfully ask you to understand that, in this thread, I am trying to have a conversation with the SC members, and that I very much want them to be able to read my ideas without the thread being filled with OT comments about my posting habits, etc. You are actually giving rise to more posts in the thread than are necessary, and are making my actual topic harder to follow. Could you please respect my right to communicate with the SC? Thank you for your kindness if so. ;-) If you want to continue a discussion of the relative merits of the two products, may I ask you to reply to this post in a *new and separate thread*? Thank you for your understanding if so. ;-) David Nelson On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 22:02, David Nelson wrote: > Hi Florian, :-) > > All the active members of the docs team have accounts on the Alfresco > site I'm hosting right now. There is a general consensus/willingness > to use it, and people have already started trying it out for actual > work. > > Putting it under a TDF sub-domain will only further strengthen > people's commitment to uptake. > > We're ready to start a pilot work project, using the workflow that has > been developed. We have a system set up with: > > - a custom-designed workflow for the docs team, developed by a > professional Alfresco developer and a member of the docs team, > - full git-like versioning, > - rollback, > - discussion around documents, > - full built-in support for ODF/OOo/LibreOffice file formats, > - simple usage (publication/updating) for users via the use of an > existing plugin for OOo/LibO that lets you collaborate right from > within the LibO applications, > - sophisticated searching capability, that can extend right into > hosted documents. > > Basically, we have all the sophisticated functionality we need for > properly-managed, automation-assisted documentation development and > prepping for publication, with the potential ability to interface with > a variety of outside systems, such as directly with the LibreOffice > code repository... > > It would be a great tool for producing developer documentation in the > future, in addition to the user documentation the docs team is now > working on. > > It could also be used for easy management of HTML content on TDF > servers (documentfoundation.org, for instance), and for a variety of > other purposes. > > Using Alfresco, we will be able to develop all our documentation and > many other kinds of content in-house, and we will acquire expertise > and autonomy within the LibreOffice project and docs team. > > The advantages of hosting it on my server would be as follows: > > 1) It's quite a complicated package to set-up and configure. It is > quite memory-hungry. On my server, it is already fully operational. No > workload or worry for you. Version upgrades will be done whenever I > want, without putting workload and responsibility on you. > > 2) On my server, it is running within an environment that is simple to > manage. No problems of conflicts with the many other software products > that TDF runs. You get none of the complications that would inevitably > exist with integrating Alfresco into a TDF server. > > 3) I have access to 24/7 professional t
Re: [steering-discuss] connecting external services to our domain
Hi Andreas, :-) Thought: I think that odfauthors.org is a great resource for smaller Open Source projects that don't have the people, time or resources to properly develop their own documentation. But I think it's in the best interests of a *major* software project like LibreOffice to have an in-house documentation team that is really specialized in the product. David Nelson On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 22:02, David Nelson wrote: > Hi Florian, :-) > > All the active members of the docs team have accounts on the Alfresco > site I'm hosting right now. There is a general consensus/willingness > to use it, and people have already started trying it out for actual > work. > > Putting it under a TDF sub-domain will only further strengthen > people's commitment to uptake. > > We're ready to start a pilot work project, using the workflow that has > been developed. We have a system set up with: > > - a custom-designed workflow for the docs team, developed by a > professional Alfresco developer and a member of the docs team, > - full git-like versioning, > - rollback, > - discussion around documents, > - full built-in support for ODF/OOo/LibreOffice file formats, > - simple usage (publication/updating) for users via the use of an > existing plugin for OOo/LibO that lets you collaborate right from > within the LibO applications, > - sophisticated searching capability, that can extend right into > hosted documents. > > Basically, we have all the sophisticated functionality we need for > properly-managed, automation-assisted documentation development and > prepping for publication, with the potential ability to interface with > a variety of outside systems, such as directly with the LibreOffice > code repository... > > It would be a great tool for producing developer documentation in the > future, in addition to the user documentation the docs team is now > working on. > > It could also be used for easy management of HTML content on TDF > servers (documentfoundation.org, for instance), and for a variety of > other purposes. > > Using Alfresco, we will be able to develop all our documentation and > many other kinds of content in-house, and we will acquire expertise > and autonomy within the LibreOffice project and docs team. > > The advantages of hosting it on my server would be as follows: > > 1) It's quite a complicated package to set-up and configure. It is > quite memory-hungry. On my server, it is already fully operational. No > workload or worry for you. Version upgrades will be done whenever I > want, without putting workload and responsibility on you. > > 2) On my server, it is running within an environment that is simple to > manage. No problems of conflicts with the many other software products > that TDF runs. You get none of the complications that would inevitably > exist with integrating Alfresco into a TDF server. > > 3) I have access to 24/7 professional technical support, with in-house > Alfresco expertise. Any problems can be troubleshot within minutes, at > any time of day or night, with no problems of people on vacation, > sick, etc. > > 4) On my server, I have full root access and full control over all the > other software running on the server. I can't have that on a TDF > server. > > 5) On my server, I can peacefully reboot the system at any time and, > generally, do anything I want, without having to worry about other > users, running software, etc. And one does need to anticipate > occasional *total* system outages during the running-in period. > > 6) On my server, I can do memory and disk space upgrades 24/7 within > minutes. That kind of turnaround will not be available on a TDF > server. > > 7) The server is hosted in a secure data center in the UK, and > automated backups are taken at regular intervals, under my control. > > 8) You and Christian already have admin access to the Alfresco back > end. You can also both have permanent SSH user accounts to inspect the > server, suggest security improvements, etc. But you will find pretty > much the same security arrangements as I found on > documentfoundation.org. > > 9) I undertake to provide TDF with the best-possible service, and to > work on building a strong docs team and documentation base for > LibreOffice. I will also make a major effort in the future to expand > the number of active docs contributors within the LibreOffice project. > > If you agree, the sub-domain name I would suggest would be > alfresco.libreoffice.org. > > What do you think? ;-) > > 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] connecting external services to our domain
Hi Andreas, :-) You're obviously entitled to your opinions, and I'm obviously entitled to mine. ;-) But this is a request that I'm submitting to the SC for their consideration. David Nelson On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 22:02, David Nelson wrote: > Hi Florian, :-) > > All the active members of the docs team have accounts on the Alfresco > site I'm hosting right now. There is a general consensus/willingness > to use it, and people have already started trying it out for actual > work. > > Putting it under a TDF sub-domain will only further strengthen > people's commitment to uptake. > > We're ready to start a pilot work project, using the workflow that has > been developed. We have a system set up with: > > - a custom-designed workflow for the docs team, developed by a > professional Alfresco developer and a member of the docs team, > - full git-like versioning, > - rollback, > - discussion around documents, > - full built-in support for ODF/OOo/LibreOffice file formats, > - simple usage (publication/updating) for users via the use of an > existing plugin for OOo/LibO that lets you collaborate right from > within the LibO applications, > - sophisticated searching capability, that can extend right into > hosted documents. > > Basically, we have all the sophisticated functionality we need for > properly-managed, automation-assisted documentation development and > prepping for publication, with the potential ability to interface with > a variety of outside systems, such as directly with the LibreOffice > code repository... > > It would be a great tool for producing developer documentation in the > future, in addition to the user documentation the docs team is now > working on. > > It could also be used for easy management of HTML content on TDF > servers (documentfoundation.org, for instance), and for a variety of > other purposes. > > Using Alfresco, we will be able to develop all our documentation and > many other kinds of content in-house, and we will acquire expertise > and autonomy within the LibreOffice project and docs team. > > The advantages of hosting it on my server would be as follows: > > 1) It's quite a complicated package to set-up and configure. It is > quite memory-hungry. On my server, it is already fully operational. No > workload or worry for you. Version upgrades will be done whenever I > want, without putting workload and responsibility on you. > > 2) On my server, it is running within an environment that is simple to > manage. No problems of conflicts with the many other software products > that TDF runs. You get none of the complications that would inevitably > exist with integrating Alfresco into a TDF server. > > 3) I have access to 24/7 professional technical support, with in-house > Alfresco expertise. Any problems can be troubleshot within minutes, at > any time of day or night, with no problems of people on vacation, > sick, etc. > > 4) On my server, I have full root access and full control over all the > other software running on the server. I can't have that on a TDF > server. > > 5) On my server, I can peacefully reboot the system at any time and, > generally, do anything I want, without having to worry about other > users, running software, etc. And one does need to anticipate > occasional *total* system outages during the running-in period. > > 6) On my server, I can do memory and disk space upgrades 24/7 within > minutes. That kind of turnaround will not be available on a TDF > server. > > 7) The server is hosted in a secure data center in the UK, and > automated backups are taken at regular intervals, under my control. > > 8) You and Christian already have admin access to the Alfresco back > end. You can also both have permanent SSH user accounts to inspect the > server, suggest security improvements, etc. But you will find pretty > much the same security arrangements as I found on > documentfoundation.org. > > 9) I undertake to provide TDF with the best-possible service, and to > work on building a strong docs team and documentation base for > LibreOffice. I will also make a major effort in the future to expand > the number of active docs contributors within the LibreOffice project. > > If you agree, the sub-domain name I would suggest would be > alfresco.libreoffice.org. > > What do you think? ;-) > > 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] connecting external services to our domain
Hi, :-) On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 23:20, Nino Novak wrote: > 1) Is there any integration (planned?) with odfauthors or is it just > about a new and different place to produce documentation (specific for > libreoffice maybe)? IMHO, it is in the best interests of LibreOffice project for the LibreOffice documentation project to have its own workflow, expertise and policies for LibreOffice documentation. However, I proactively asked Jean Weber (odfauthors.org) to be part of the Alfresco site and the LibreOffice documentation team. I invited her to have an admin account on the Alfresco site, and actually gave her one despite her only-lukewarm interest, to encourage her close participation. But she is very taken up with odfauthors, and does not seem want any close involvement in the LibreOffice documentation team. I even suggested to her to take team leadership of the LibreOffice docs team two times in the past. But she's very much occupied with odfauthors. In any case, no matter what similarities there might be between OOo and LibO right at present, the two products are quickly going to diverge. LibreOffice might as well start developing its own documentation team and expertise now. On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 23:20, Nino Novak wrote: > 2) what about the l10n people? Are they involved already or is it > planned to involve them? Or is it just about to create "international" > (i.e. English) documents (optionally serving as master for translation)? There is every opportunity for interested l10n people to work with Alfresco, and I have been intending to throw open an invitation. But I've held back on that until a) the SC grants me a remit to operate an Alfresco server for the project and b) I've been able to consult and liaise with Sophie Gauthier beforehand. On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 22:35, Jaime R. Garza wrote: > who is sponsoring your server? No-one is sponsoring it. I operate it myself. On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 22:35, Jaime R. Garza wrote: > What would be your benefit? The pleasure, interest and kudos of working for TDF and the LibreOffice Open Source project? Worthwhile professional experience? On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 22:35, Jaime R. Garza wrote: > And how can you warranty the uptime and performance and for how long? The server is hosted in a high-quality, secure data center in the UK, with all the security and backup systems you find in such modern infrastructures. I can't *warranty* the server uptime and performances beyond a best-effort, good-faith commitment and the guarantees offered by the data center. But Open Source projects don't offer better, do they? For how long? Not beyond my death, in any case. Up to then, things should be OK. But, seriously, I would always cooperate in all good faith in a handover, and would always make best arrangements not to damage the LibreOffice project's interests. I *care* about the project, and I *care* about my reputation. ;-) Florian, SC, please read my post below: David Nelson On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 22:02, David Nelson wrote: > Hi Florian, :-) > > All the active members of the docs team have accounts on the Alfresco > site I'm hosting right now. There is a general consensus/willingness > to use it, and people have already started trying it out for actual > work. > > Putting it under a TDF sub-domain will only further strengthen > people's commitment to uptake. > > We're ready to start a pilot work project, using the workflow that has > been developed. We have a system set up with: > > - a custom-designed workflow for the docs team, developed by a > professional Alfresco developer and a member of the docs team, > - full git-like versioning, > - rollback, > - discussion around documents, > - full built-in support for ODF/OOo/LibreOffice file formats, > - simple usage (publication/updating) for users via the use of an > existing plugin for OOo/LibO that lets you collaborate right from > within the LibO applications, > - sophisticated searching capability, that can extend right into > hosted documents. > > Basically, we have all the sophisticated functionality we need for > properly-managed, automation-assisted documentation development and > prepping for publication, with the potential ability to interface with > a variety of outside systems, such as directly with the LibreOffice > code repository... > > It would be a great tool for producing developer documentation in the > future, in addition to the user documentation the docs team is now > working on. > > It could also be used for easy management of HTML content on TDF > servers (documentfoundation.org, for instance), and for a variety of > other purposes. > > Using Alfresco, we will be able to develop all our documentation and > many other kinds of content in-house, and we will acquire expertise &
Re: [steering-discuss] next SC call tomorrow, 1700 UTC
Hi Charles, :-) I understand that Mike is rescheduling the call. I'll fit in with whatever time is chosen. (It will be about 2 a.m. my time, most likely, if 19.00 UTC is chosen.) 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] connecting external services to our domain
Hi Florian, :-) All the active members of the docs team have accounts on the Alfresco site I'm hosting right now. There is a general consensus/willingness to use it, and people have already started trying it out for actual work. Putting it under a TDF sub-domain will only further strengthen people's commitment to uptake. We're ready to start a pilot work project, using the workflow that has been developed. We have a system set up with: - a custom-designed workflow for the docs team, developed by a professional Alfresco developer and a member of the docs team, - full git-like versioning, - rollback, - discussion around documents, - full built-in support for ODF/OOo/LibreOffice file formats, - simple usage (publication/updating) for users via the use of an existing plugin for OOo/LibO that lets you collaborate right from within the LibO applications, - sophisticated searching capability, that can extend right into hosted documents. Basically, we have all the sophisticated functionality we need for properly-managed, automation-assisted documentation development and prepping for publication, with the potential ability to interface with a variety of outside systems, such as directly with the LibreOffice code repository... It would be a great tool for producing developer documentation in the future, in addition to the user documentation the docs team is now working on. It could also be used for easy management of HTML content on TDF servers (documentfoundation.org, for instance), and for a variety of other purposes. Using Alfresco, we will be able to develop all our documentation and many other kinds of content in-house, and we will acquire expertise and autonomy within the LibreOffice project and docs team. The advantages of hosting it on my server would be as follows: 1) It's quite a complicated package to set-up and configure. It is quite memory-hungry. On my server, it is already fully operational. No workload or worry for you. Version upgrades will be done whenever I want, without putting workload and responsibility on you. 2) On my server, it is running within an environment that is simple to manage. No problems of conflicts with the many other software products that TDF runs. You get none of the complications that would inevitably exist with integrating Alfresco into a TDF server. 3) I have access to 24/7 professional technical support, with in-house Alfresco expertise. Any problems can be troubleshot within minutes, at any time of day or night, with no problems of people on vacation, sick, etc. 4) On my server, I have full root access and full control over all the other software running on the server. I can't have that on a TDF server. 5) On my server, I can peacefully reboot the system at any time and, generally, do anything I want, without having to worry about other users, running software, etc. And one does need to anticipate occasional *total* system outages during the running-in period. 6) On my server, I can do memory and disk space upgrades 24/7 within minutes. That kind of turnaround will not be available on a TDF server. 7) The server is hosted in a secure data center in the UK, and automated backups are taken at regular intervals, under my control. 8) You and Christian already have admin access to the Alfresco back end. You can also both have permanent SSH user accounts to inspect the server, suggest security improvements, etc. But you will find pretty much the same security arrangements as I found on documentfoundation.org. 9) I undertake to provide TDF with the best-possible service, and to work on building a strong docs team and documentation base for LibreOffice. I will also make a major effort in the future to expand the number of active docs contributors within the LibreOffice project. If you agree, the sub-domain name I would suggest would be alfresco.libreoffice.org. What do you think? ;-) 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] next SC call tomorrow, 1700 UTC
Hi, :-) If you could have the SC call at 19.00 UTC it would be so great... This is a very special conversation we want to have tomorrow, and it's likely to be lnngg... 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] next SC call tomorrow, 1700 UTC
Hi, :-) Could you maybe make it 2 hours later? This would be likely to be a long call. 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] next SC call tomorrow, 1700 UTC
Hi Florian, :-) Wow! What inconvenient timing... We had planned the website conference call for Friday 21 January @ 5pm GMT too! I was going to catch you on the Marketing call tonight to ask you if you could give us the codes for that... Is there any chance you could maybe re-schedule the SC call for this one time? This would really be an important call for the website team... Could you maybe do the SC call at 9 pm GMT, for instance? 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] connecting external services to our domain
Hi Florian, :-) Ah! Now I understand why you kept me waiting for 2 weeks for any kind of reply to my request! :-D http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/ODFAuthors-Site-with-workflow-tp2282617p2282617.html 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] connecting external services to our domain
Hi Florian, :-) On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 21:37, Florian Effenberger wrote: > * self-hosted servers can only be connected if they are in our > infrastructure management and fit our security requirements Actually, I only just properly read your original post Is there a way I can satisfy this constraint, or should we just set this idea aside? If you don't want to assign the subdomain 'alfresco.libreoffice.org' and if the docs team seems interested in using the site on my server, what would be your thoughts if I renamed the domain to 'libreoffice.myserver.com'? 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] connecting external services to our domain
Hi, :-) The situation is that the workflow can already be considered to be 80% or 90% complete, and the next step will be some pilot testing with actual work on documentation content, which could start later this week. In parallel, I'd also been planning to throw open an invite to i18n people who might be interested in Alfresco as a tool for their work. That might require the development of a separate workflow, depending on what usage was envisioned. But what seems to be the active core of the documentation team does not seem to be at all averse to adopting Alfresco for documentation work. Personally, I'm perfectly happy to operate the Alfresco site on my server, and to grant all appropriate access to relevant TDF SC members at OS level. I had suggested alfresco.libreoffice.org for the sub-domain. However, I will - of course - cooperate fully with whatever decision the SC takes. The main need would be to take a decision fairy soon, before the number of user accounts, the sophistication of the workflow and the mass of data and content reach a point at which migration becomes a bigger task. You would probably find it useful to know that installing and setting-up Alfresco is a not-inconsiderable process, and that you want a minimum of 1 Gigabyte of memory, with 2 to 3 being recommended to me for a busier system. My server has excellent 24/7 technical support. Thoughts? 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] libreoffice.org e-mail accounts
Hi, :-) On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 20:53, Volker Merschmann wrote: > Don't you think that the rule that active contributing is mandatory > for membership does apply? Else there will be members of different > degrees. :-( +1 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Minutes of SC call 2011-01-13 for review
Hi Stefan, :-)
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 04:34, Stefan Weigel
wrote:
> # decision: SC appoints a team of 4 people that will be responsible
> for managing the website for a trial period of two months
> this team consists of:
>
>
> Is this for the international ("main") site only? Are we still
> allowed to use our roles as authors and publishers in Silverstripe,
> as we have done the past weeks?
My interpretation is that the decision concerns the English main site
(it does not cover the NL sites).
During this trial period, you should not use your SilverStripe
author/publisher permissions to do any stuff on the English main site
without the prior agreement of the person in charge of content (me).
But people can do what they like on the NL sites - it's not our/my business.
However, the SC specifically asked me to seek to build a contributor
team, as regards content, and I will be doing that (started already -
see [1]). So if you're interested in working on the English NL site,
there will definitely be the opportunity (although I will be
preferring English NL contributors for drafting content).
However, you do need to get a remit from me first. No just jumping in. ;-)
And, of course, we will be paying attention to feedback from the community.
SC, is the above a reasonable interpretation of your intentions?
[1]
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Call-for-volunteers-to-work-on-the-libreoffice-org-website-content-tp2258026p2258026.html
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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] libreoffice.org e-mail accounts
Hi, :-) If it's not a "real" libreoffice.org or documentfoundation.org account, I don't think anyone will be interested. I know I wouldn't bother using one of these "libreofficecommunity.org", etc., accounts myself i'd just use my own mail account in that case 0.2 cents. ;-) 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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] libreoffice.org e-mail accounts
Hi, :-) Small idea: have you considered using Google Apps for the project's mail needs? *So* easy to set-up, *so* easy to maintain, feature-packed, and I'm sure they will give TDF a free upgrade to an enterprise account. Lots of other benefits, too. 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] Re: Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws
number of real project workers; - it would undoubtedly be perceived positively by outside corporate / enterprise observers (Ubuntu and many others); - each announcement of a significant step forward in bylaw / governance implementation can be turned into very positive publicity and marketing, and reverberated around the Net (via TDF blog articles, coverage on our social media, and proactive contact with prominent bloggers and journalists). Conclusion = I hope you will not perceive everything I have said in this thread as just negative ranting. Having posted this message, I will spend a large part of this day doing actual work for the project. It is all uniquely intended to try and raise your awareness about possible dangers that I see, and about viewpoints that may not have occurred to you. I hope only to see the LibreOffice project and TDF survive and succeed. But I do think the SC needs to take action *urgently*. [1] http://www.itworld.com/open-source/132546/ubuntu-libreoffice-replacing-openofficeorg-reports-premature David Nelson On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 10:49, David Nelson wrote: > Hi SC members, :-) > > Charles wrote an excellent set of Community Bylaws. I would like to > see them officially adopted and applied. And I would like to see the > various committees and governance systems in the Community Bylaws set > up and become active. > > I feel that this is important for the future of LibreOffice. I > strongly support the project, and I want to see it succeed. I think we > need to take action quite quickly. > > I have noted how the level of involvement and contribution by "active > community members" has tailed off. I have noticed how few user support > queries there are on the user support list. It is my impression that > the level of contribution to development is also decreasing. > > We have a situation in which a key project resource, the > libreoffice.org website, is becoming the center of pushing and pulling > for control over its development. Decisions are needed about the > website's management (editorial team), and about the future direction > of its development (the question of Drupal adoption is becoming > extremely disruptive and divisive in this fledgling project). > > I personally have experienced wanting to implement 2 great initiatives > (proactive contact with Linux projects, and organization of interviews > with BBC TV and radio for Charles and/or other SC members) only to > find certain SC members strongly discouraging me to take action, > refusing to give any constructive consideration, or totally ignoring > me and not giving any reaction at all on the subject. > > When I have suggested bold initiatives, there have been very > proprietary, "control freak" reactions from some SC members, with talk > of "this is so and so's field of responsibility", and I'm strongly > discouraged from taking the idea further. > > These attitudes and some other attitudes I have encountered from > certain SC members are contrary to the > principles of good meritocracy and equality of membership laid down in > the bylaws. > > Personally, I sometimes get the impression that there is currently a > three-tier membership in this project: new community members like me: > 1 vote. past OOo community members: 1.5 votes. SC members 3 votes (or > simple dictation of decision). I have had this impression a number of > times while contributing work to the project. I know that there are at > least *some* other people who would agree fairly closely with this > assertion. I have an impression that, "All members are equal, but some > are more equal than others". :-D > > The SC was a necessary institution when TDF was first launched. But it > was only supposed to be a temporary body. Some SC members now seem to > becoming rooted in their positions of decision-taking power. The > situation is becoming undemocratic and non-meritocratic. IMHO, it > starts to resemble a form of "Communism going wrong". ;-) > > I seriously believe that, if you do not take quick action, the > LibreOffice project is in serious danger of imploding within the next > couple of months or before the end of the year. Contributors will > progressively drop away. Less and less work will be contributed. > Ultimately, tensions will arise within the SC itself, and > disagreements will break out; if the SC itself were to fragment, the > LibreOffice project could end up orphaned. > > In the present situation, you cannot attract more corporate > contributors/partners to the project, because there is not the > necessary governance. The SC lacks proper legitimacy. If you do not > take action fairly soon, could you perhaps even end-up losing the > corporate contributors you currently
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi, :-) I took the liberty of adding an item to the agenda of the next SC meeting on Thursday, Jan 13, for you to discuss and decide about the future management of the website. I have explained my ideas about the need for an editorial team, I am not trying to push any personal agenda. My only wish, after having pushed so hard to get it to its current state of existence, is that it should be properly managed and developed as a resource for the community. I trust in your intelligence and discretion to achieve that. ;-) David Nelson On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 09:26, David Nelson wrote: > Hi Charles, guys :-) > > I've read all your responses. Thanks for having taken time to give me > an answer. ;-) > > On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 00:28, Charles-H. Schulz > wrote: >> I'm not really comfortable with this extraordinary powers over that >> period and I would rather favour you driving a team (-an official team >> that is-) . However, this is the Steering Discuss list, which means >> that you have written an official and public request to the SC and we >> are bound to discuss it at the next SC call, which we will do. > > OK, thank you. if that will be OK with you guys, I'd like to take not > more than 60 seconds to present my thinking to you. If you decide to > take a vote on it, then I will happily accept whatever decision you > take. In any case, the most important thing would be to take *some* > kind of decision that ensures some form of proper future development > of the website. > > Personally, I'm wondering if this is not going to end up as some kind > of committee of committees, with endless discussions, little > opportunity to take action, etc. Or should one give everyone > publishers rights and the first one to log in gets to deface the site > to his/her taste? ;-) Two ridiculous extremes, but they could easily > happen unless you do something to prevent it... > > In any case, I have been feeling rather strongly for a few weeks that > some affirmative action is needed in community governance. IMHO, the > situation with the website is closely linked to an unsatisfactory > situation regarding governance. I will start another thread on this > subject. > > I will be listening with interest to the next SC confcall. ;-) > > 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 ***
