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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
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 ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi David I went thru several opinions in this list on your proposal and I feel myself not confortable with it. Much have been said, which I agree, and your proposal has its value and merit, but it bears a risk and a way to work with communitites that does not comply with our experiences. The main risk IMO is to open a precedent (= if you do once, you do for ever and ever). We will have to rule that your case is a special case and even it we all swear not to repeat in the future, we will be confronted to recall the "2011 TDF Website Vs Steering Committee" case. Also, and I am talking as manager to a peer manager, such decision does not comply on the way we run communities, and an empowererd individual is always a risk to be mitigated and managed. I have a couple of experiences on empowered community people that went out of control and I am not willing to repeat. I believe there is a huge opportunity for everyone of us to prove excellency in all activities of TDF and yours is second to nobody. Kind regards Olivier Em 07-01-2011 13:12, David Nelson escreveu: Hi guys, :-) I would like to make a proposal. I consider that the libreoffice.org website is a resource that can be of strategic importance to TDF and the community. I have a bunch of ideas for further developing it and using it to further the project's aims and interests. To do that job, I would ask - for a period of 4 months, subsequently renewable on condition of the SC's approval - for complete authority and final veto on all content on the libreoffice.org website. I want to be considered *the boss* of the libreoffice.org website, and my decisions would only be overridden by a majority vote of SC members. Anything short of that, my decision wins. This would give me the necessary authority to try some imaginative and ambitious plans that I will put to Marketing. I would ask for the title of "Executive editor of the libreoffice.org website". The only reason I have for asking for this title is that it gives me a handle to use in relations with outside parties, such as the press. If you feel able to grant me this trust, you can be sure that I will act responsibly and wisely, and that my sole aim will be to advance and protect the interests of the LibreOffice project and community. I believe in teamwork and community-building. I would be keen to listen to and to learn from others, and to take the smartest decisions possible. I would seek to leave behind a positive contribution. Your decision would be sealed by an official vote at the next SC meeting. What do you say, guys? ;-) Can we try this experiment and see what it produces? David Nelson -- Olivier Hallot Founder, Steering Commitee Member - The Document Foundation Voicing the enterprise Translation Leader for Brazilian Portuguese -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 15:52 +0300, sophie wrote: > Hi David, > On 07/01/2011 18:12, David Nelson wrote: > > Hi guys, :-) > this is the girl of the story ;) > > I would like to make a proposal. I consider that the libreoffice.org > > website is a resource that can be of strategic importance to TDF and > > the community. I have a bunch of ideas for further developing it and > > using it to further the project's aims and interests. > Yes, you're right and it's great to see you enthusiasm ! > > To do that job, I would ask - for a period of 4 months, subsequently > > renewable on condition of the SC's approval - for complete authority > > and final veto on all content on the libreoffice.org website. I want > > to be considered *the boss* of the libreoffice.org website, and my > > decisions would only be overridden by a majority vote of SC members. > > Anything short of that, my decision wins. > Like the others, I don't like the idea of 'complete authority and final > veto on all content'. No problem for me to consider you like *the boss* > if you prefer to have a title, but we are an open source project and > decision process is not working this way. > I absolutely do not feel comfortable with the SC members voting on each > decision, I mean the website team should be able to work and reach a > consensus by its own on what should be on line. > > There has been a failure at filling the website content at the > beginning. From my side I thought that in front of the emergency, an > English native language speaker will wake up and fill it. Ok, that has > not work this way this time, but I won't draw a picture with only a > piece of it. The website team has to think about it and change his way > to work or appeal for collaboration. Like in *any* other part of the > project, the collaboration mode is how we work and how we are willing to > work. Even if one take the final decision (the one you would call the > lead), it's because others have reach an agreement on this final > decision. And sometime it takes time (even years), but no matter, we do > not have commercial pressure or something like that, we have a community > that we want to be happy and for a long time. > > > This would give me the necessary authority to try some imaginative and > > ambitious plans that I will put to Marketing. > Like Italo said, there is a marketing project and tasks should be > coordinated with it. Also, the website is not only for marketing, it's > also for contributors and so it engages much more than marketing. > Last, I don't see why you need an authority to put your imaginative and > ambitious plans on a staging site where it can be reviewed and discussed > before being implemented. And I'm really curious to see it soon :-) > > I would ask for the title of "Executive editor of the libreoffice.org > > website". The only reason I have for asking for this title is that it > > gives me a handle to use in relations with outside parties, such as > > the press. > Also Italo expertise, here. Currently not every body can speak publicly > in the name of TDF (even not me :-), and I think it's good. > > If you feel able to grant me this trust, you can be sure that I will > > act responsibly and wisely, and that my sole aim will be to advance > > and protect the interests of the LibreOffice project and community. > I won't trust you less if you're not the big boss. You've work on > several parts of the project, the work you've done is good and important > for our project and you've done it with respect of the community values. > This is why I trust you. You have already act responsibly and wisely > without having the complete authority and final veto. > > I believe in teamwork and community-building. I would be keen to > > listen to and to learn from others, and to take the smartest decisions > > possible. I would seek to leave behind a positive contribution. > I believe in your work and what you've done on the website content, also > on the documentation project. You have found your place in our project, > you are organizing the documentation project and the tool it will use > for its workflow, you've work on the website content and want to go on. > I'm really happy to have you near me :-) I'll be also really happy to > help you work with the others among the design team, the marketing team, > the l10n team, etc. > > Your decision would be sealed by an official vote at the next SC meeting. > My vote will be -1 because of the reasons above and I join also > Christian conclusion. > > But I really don't want you to resign. I would like to offer my help and > any time you need to discuss further how we work. Most of us are in open > source projects for quite a long time, we have had to learn also, if I > can help you, it sincerely will be my pleasure :) > > Kind regards > Sophie > Hi all, @David - I've been trying to draft an email on this question also, as you already know - Sophie just said what I was t
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi :) I really think that groups need to be able to act with autonomy rather than being micro-managed by the steering group. If the steering group has to agree every detail then why bother having separate groups/lists at all? Obviously we are going to need to have established procedures and guidelines at some point soon but if groups behave sensibly then these can be established by the groups and then ratified/amended by the steering group. Regards from Tom :) From: sophie To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Sat, 8 January, 2011 12:52:48 Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management Hi David, On 07/01/2011 18:12, David Nelson wrote: > Hi guys, :-) this is the girl of the story ;) > I would like to make a proposal. I consider that the libreoffice.org > website is a resource that can be of strategic importance to TDF and > the community. I have a bunch of ideas for further developing it and > using it to further the project's aims and interests. Yes, you're right and it's great to see you enthusiasm ! > To do that job, I would ask - for a period of 4 months, subsequently > renewable on condition of the SC's approval - for complete authority > and final veto on all content on the libreoffice.org website. I want > to be considered *the boss* of the libreoffice.org website, and my > decisions would only be overridden by a majority vote of SC members. > Anything short of that, my decision wins. Like the others, I don't like the idea of 'complete authority and final veto on all content'. No problem for me to consider you like *the boss* if you prefer to have a title, but we are an open source project and decision process is not working this way. I absolutely do not feel comfortable with the SC members voting on each decision, I mean the website team should be able to work and reach a consensus by its own on what should be on line. There has been a failure at filling the website content at the beginning. From my side I thought that in front of the emergency, an English native language speaker will wake up and fill it. Ok, that has not work this way this time, but I won't draw a picture with only a piece of it. The website team has to think about it and change his way to work or appeal for collaboration. Like in *any* other part of the project, the collaboration mode is how we work and how we are willing to work. Even if one take the final decision (the one you would call the lead), it's because others have reach an agreement on this final decision. And sometime it takes time (even years), but no matter, we do not have commercial pressure or something like that, we have a community that we want to be happy and for a long time. > This would give me the necessary authority to try some imaginative and > ambitious plans that I will put to Marketing. Like Italo said, there is a marketing project and tasks should be coordinated with it. Also, the website is not only for marketing, it's also for contributors and so it engages much more than marketing. Last, I don't see why you need an authority to put your imaginative and ambitious plans on a staging site where it can be reviewed and discussed before being implemented. And I'm really curious to see it soon :-) > I would ask for the title of "Executive editor of the libreoffice.org > website". The only reason I have for asking for this title is that it > gives me a handle to use in relations with outside parties, such as > the press. Also Italo expertise, here. Currently not every body can speak publicly in the name of TDF (even not me :-), and I think it's good. > If you feel able to grant me this trust, you can be sure that I will > act responsibly and wisely, and that my sole aim will be to advance > and protect the interests of the LibreOffice project and community. I won't trust you less if you're not the big boss. You've work on several parts of the project, the work you've done is good and important for our project and you've done it with respect of the community values. This is why I trust you. You have already act responsibly and wisely without having the complete authority and final veto. > I believe in teamwork and community-building. I would be keen to > listen to and to learn from others, and to take the smartest decisions > possible. I would seek to leave behind a positive contribution. I believe in your work and what you've done on the website content, also on the documentation project. You have found your place in our project, you are organizing the documentation project and the tool it will use for its workflow, you've work on the website content and want to go on. I'm really happy to have you near me :-) I'll be also reall
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi David, On 07/01/2011 18:12, David Nelson wrote: Hi guys, :-) this is the girl of the story ;) I would like to make a proposal. I consider that the libreoffice.org website is a resource that can be of strategic importance to TDF and the community. I have a bunch of ideas for further developing it and using it to further the project's aims and interests. Yes, you're right and it's great to see you enthusiasm ! To do that job, I would ask - for a period of 4 months, subsequently renewable on condition of the SC's approval - for complete authority and final veto on all content on the libreoffice.org website. I want to be considered *the boss* of the libreoffice.org website, and my decisions would only be overridden by a majority vote of SC members. Anything short of that, my decision wins. Like the others, I don't like the idea of 'complete authority and final veto on all content'. No problem for me to consider you like *the boss* if you prefer to have a title, but we are an open source project and decision process is not working this way. I absolutely do not feel comfortable with the SC members voting on each decision, I mean the website team should be able to work and reach a consensus by its own on what should be on line. There has been a failure at filling the website content at the beginning. From my side I thought that in front of the emergency, an English native language speaker will wake up and fill it. Ok, that has not work this way this time, but I won't draw a picture with only a piece of it. The website team has to think about it and change his way to work or appeal for collaboration. Like in *any* other part of the project, the collaboration mode is how we work and how we are willing to work. Even if one take the final decision (the one you would call the lead), it's because others have reach an agreement on this final decision. And sometime it takes time (even years), but no matter, we do not have commercial pressure or something like that, we have a community that we want to be happy and for a long time. This would give me the necessary authority to try some imaginative and ambitious plans that I will put to Marketing. Like Italo said, there is a marketing project and tasks should be coordinated with it. Also, the website is not only for marketing, it's also for contributors and so it engages much more than marketing. Last, I don't see why you need an authority to put your imaginative and ambitious plans on a staging site where it can be reviewed and discussed before being implemented. And I'm really curious to see it soon :-) I would ask for the title of "Executive editor of the libreoffice.org website". The only reason I have for asking for this title is that it gives me a handle to use in relations with outside parties, such as the press. Also Italo expertise, here. Currently not every body can speak publicly in the name of TDF (even not me :-), and I think it's good. If you feel able to grant me this trust, you can be sure that I will act responsibly and wisely, and that my sole aim will be to advance and protect the interests of the LibreOffice project and community. I won't trust you less if you're not the big boss. You've work on several parts of the project, the work you've done is good and important for our project and you've done it with respect of the community values. This is why I trust you. You have already act responsibly and wisely without having the complete authority and final veto. I believe in teamwork and community-building. I would be keen to listen to and to learn from others, and to take the smartest decisions possible. I would seek to leave behind a positive contribution. I believe in your work and what you've done on the website content, also on the documentation project. You have found your place in our project, you are organizing the documentation project and the tool it will use for its workflow, you've work on the website content and want to go on. I'm really happy to have you near me :-) I'll be also really happy to help you work with the others among the design team, the marketing team, the l10n team, etc. Your decision would be sealed by an official vote at the next SC meeting. My vote will be -1 because of the reasons above and I join also Christian conclusion. But I really don't want you to resign. I would like to offer my help and any time you need to discuss further how we work. Most of us are in open source projects for quite a long time, we have had to learn also, if I can help you, it sincerely will be my pleasure :) Kind regards Sophie -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi David, *, On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:12 PM, David Nelson wrote: > > To do that job, I would ask - for a period of 4 months, subsequently > renewable on condition of the SC's approval - for complete authority > and final veto on all content on the libreoffice.org website. I have to agree with the others that I don't like this way of handling the situation. I'm rather with Michael: Whose who do the work have the say anyway. > I want > to be considered *the boss* of the libreoffice.org website, and my > decisions would only be overridden by a majority vote of SC members. > Anything short of that, my decision wins. I'd rather prefer if that would not be needed in the first place - being the boss because one is the person who does the work gives me a better feeling than "I'm the boss because that's written on my nametag" > This would give me the necessary authority to try some imaginative and > ambitious plans that I will put to Marketing. Well - in that case I even more have to say -1 If you're the only one to think your plans are great (and in only this case you'd need to have "Boss"-powers), then I'd rather not follow that plan. If other people agree, then you're the boss because you're driving things forward. > I would ask for the title of "Executive editor of the libreoffice.org > website". The only reason I have for asking for this title is that it > gives me a handle to use in relations with outside parties, such as > the press. Regarding representing the TDF/the project to the press, others have responded already. > [...] > What do you say, guys? ;-) Can we try this experiment and see what it > produces? I'd say now (but I'm no SC member) - the goals of the TDF are to drive community collaboration in the end, not "one party can do as they please". Experience, and actual contribution/work done should weigh more than a title. That is nothing wrong with giving you a title "Executive editor" - but the "I can veto whatever I want" part is what I don't agree with. I'm sure you wouldn't abuse that power, but is the message it signals to the outside, the principle behind it that doesn't please me. The community should be "ruled" based on rationale decisions, on discussions where people can provide input, etc (and that quality of the opinion/person behind it weighs more than just quantity of votes). Having a mini-dictatorship is OK for special cases, but is not a long-term situation. ciao Christian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
On 1/7/11 4:12 PM, David Nelson wrote: To do that job, I would ask - for a period of 4 months, subsequently renewable on condition of the SC's approval - for complete authority and final veto on all content on the libreoffice.org website. I want to be considered *the boss* of the libreoffice.org website, and my decisions would only be overridden by a majority vote of SC members. Anything short of that, my decision wins. Hi David, I am totally against such a decision. You have done a very good job for the progress of the web site, but I do not think that anyone inside the project deserves the title of boss of a specific project. TDF is a community project, and we must respect the community way of doing things. Consensus is key for the progress of the project, and for the progress of sub projects within the main project. Forced consensus, even if backed by the SC, is not going to work. This would give me the necessary authority to try some imaginative and ambitious plans that I will put to Marketing. You are invited and welcome to share your ambitious plans with the community of volunteers interested in marketing TDF and LibreOffice. Any marketing plan must be shared and agreed before being put into practice. I would ask for the title of "Executive editor of the libreoffice.org website". The only reason I have for asking for this title is that it gives me a handle to use in relations with outside parties, such as the press. David, this is puzzling and worrying me at the same time. Why should you talk to the press outside TDF communication activities, which are coordinated by the SC and have already four official spokespersons? If it is appropriate for you to talk with the press on behalf of TDF, we will be more than happy to put you forward after having been media trained (the entire SC has been media trained). If you feel able to grant me this trust, you can be sure that I will act responsibly and wisely, and that my sole aim will be to advance and protect the interests of the LibreOffice project and community. I am just one out of eight the SC members, but I will strongly disapprove any decision in the direction requested by your message. I believe in teamwork and community-building. I would be keen to listen to and to learn from others, and to take the smartest decisions possible. I would seek to leave behind a positive contribution. David, so far, you have been a good community member, and you have done a lot for the project. In my opinion, though, your request is not a demonstration of respect for teamwork and community building. Even if we are used to work in a corporate environment, we must accept that the community environment is a different one, and even if we hate lengthy discussions we need to cope with them using different weapons from traditional corporate hierarchy. You have already got something unusual, i.e. a few days of extraordinary empowerment - and I am sure that you have used them to the advantage of the project - but this, in my opinion, does not qualify for another request of the same kind, and for a longer span of time. So said, I am keen to listen to the opinion of the other members of the SC. Ciao, Italo -- Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813 Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
> 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. I understand the discomfort, but given that the SC can take away that authority anytime and seeing how much the uncoordinated efforts had produced in the previous months, I would argue that it's worthwhile to experiment with this and see what happens. The drupal team can meanwhile continue to design and envision a drupal-based system Sebastian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi guys, :-) I would like to make a proposal. I consider that the libreoffice.org website is a resource that can be of strategic importance to TDF and the community. I have a bunch of ideas for further developing it and using it to further the project's aims and interests. To do that job, I would ask - for a period of 4 months, subsequently renewable on condition of the SC's approval - for complete authority and final veto on all content on the libreoffice.org website. I want to be considered *the boss* of the libreoffice.org website, and my decisions would only be overridden by a majority vote of SC members. Anything short of that, my decision wins. This would give me the necessary authority to try some imaginative and ambitious plans that I will put to Marketing. I would ask for the title of "Executive editor of the libreoffice.org website". The only reason I have for asking for this title is that it gives me a handle to use in relations with outside parties, such as the press. If you feel able to grant me this trust, you can be sure that I will act responsibly and wisely, and that my sole aim will be to advance and protect the interests of the LibreOffice project and community. I believe in teamwork and community-building. I would be keen to listen to and to learn from others, and to take the smartest decisions possible. I would seek to leave behind a positive contribution. Your decision would be sealed by an official vote at the next SC meeting. What do you say, guys? ;-) Can we try this experiment and see what it produces? 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] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi :) At the moment David appears to be filling at least 2 roles for the web-site team. Could 1 title cover both or would it be better if someone else (not me obviously) could step into whichever of the roles he wants to drop? In worker co-operatives we often have people leading certain internal groups and being given titles to suit their job. This helps the particular group and the rest of the project know who is doing what, who to approach over certain issues. It also helps when dealing with people from other organisations. Sometimes the internal group might be a temporary one or the role might be temporary but i think the website group is a long-term group and David's roles within that are long-term even if relinquished to other people. I would prefer to see David stay in post and be given a title suitable to the work he wants to do. Regards from Tom :) From: Charles-H. Schulz To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Fri, 7 January, 2011 12:11:40 Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management Hello David, Le Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:07:31 +0800, David Nelson a écrit : > Hi Michael, :-) > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 05:36, Michael Meeks > wrote: > >> a clear decision about the management of the libreoffice.org > >> website. It's an important tool for marketing. I have plenty of > >> ideas about how to market with it > > > >Here is my clear idea: since you are doing the work - you > > get to own it, lead it, and those that don't like what you do get > > to gripe at you, and everyone else gets to back you up :-) [ if > > only to keep you motivated, happy and productive ;-]. > > I get the idea, but I'm not sure if it is really viable as a form of > management. For instance, me, I want to do *work* for the project. But > I don't want to spend more time writing to lists arguing with people, > etc, than actually doing useful work. > > My experience to date has been 90% debating by e-mail and 10% actual > work... > > And I certainly didn't feel too much back up until the last few > days... I'm sorry to hear this, but I thought it was clear you were backed up... what did we miss? > > So I probably won't be tempted to carry on the work past my original > goal of seeing the LibreOffice community with a website. > > At the moment, spending more time with my guitar sounds more > inviting! ;-) Well guitar can be inviting , yet I would be extremely sorry to see you go David. Your contributions are indeed precious. Mind reconsidering your position? > > >> and I would like to get a clear remit to work on that with you. > >> Please can you read my post [1] on the SC list and contribute your > >> thoughts on it? > > > >I read it - it had about five new formal roles in it - so I > > didn't like it. I'd much prefer that you were the leader by dint of > > actually doing all the hard work (like you are now) :-) > > I do see what you mean, but working on the website for the project has > not been a good experience so far... A whole lot of criticism, very > little useful support, very little practical help from anyone... > > > (personally) I am not a big believer in lots of formal access > > control - but in social pressure and consensus building: > > you created some nice > > content - how can we help you stop other people mangling it ? > > I don't really know, Michael... You tell me? :-D Well perhaps it might be time to give you some clear title? :-) > > >> If you allow the site to be run in a chaotic, uncontrolled manner, > >> I think you'll lose a lot of the benefit it could otherwise bring > >> the foundation. > > > >True, so I wonder how we can help coax people into producing > > and editing in a tasteful and restrained way ? how can we build > > good taste, and/or asking-when-they-don't-know-the-answer into the > > community of editors ? > > Well, again, this is apparently the SC's "laisse-faire" / anarchical > style of community governance... or non-governance... so you tell me > the answers to those questions... ;-) > > It's a system that might work when you're dealing with just people of > goodwill and good intent... but we all know that there are always some > people with negative behaviors and attitudes... How is one supposed to > cope with them? There are never only people with good will. There are only an alignment of interests. But you are also quite right that sometimes these interests cannot be aligned. We might have been somewhat naive on this and we do need, I
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hello David, Le Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:07:31 +0800, David Nelson a écrit : > Hi Michael, :-) > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 05:36, Michael Meeks > wrote: > >> a clear decision about the management of the libreoffice.org > >> website. It's an important tool for marketing. I have plenty of > >> ideas about how to market with it > > > > Here is my clear idea: since you are doing the work - you > > get to own it, lead it, and those that don't like what you do get > > to gripe at you, and everyone else gets to back you up :-) [ if > > only to keep you motivated, happy and productive ;-]. > > I get the idea, but I'm not sure if it is really viable as a form of > management. For instance, me, I want to do *work* for the project. But > I don't want to spend more time writing to lists arguing with people, > etc, than actually doing useful work. > > My experience to date has been 90% debating by e-mail and 10% actual > work... > > And I certainly didn't feel too much back up until the last few > days... I'm sorry to hear this, but I thought it was clear you were backed up... what did we miss? > > So I probably won't be tempted to carry on the work past my original > goal of seeing the LibreOffice community with a website. > > At the moment, spending more time with my guitar sounds more > inviting! ;-) Well guitar can be inviting , yet I would be extremely sorry to see you go David. Your contributions are indeed precious. Mind reconsidering your position? > > >> and I would like to get a clear remit to work on that with you. > >> Please can you read my post [1] on the SC list and contribute your > >> thoughts on it? > > > > I read it - it had about five new formal roles in it - so I > > didn't like it. I'd much prefer that you were the leader by dint of > > actually doing all the hard work (like you are now) :-) > > I do see what you mean, but working on the website for the project has > not been a good experience so far... A whole lot of criticism, very > little useful support, very little practical help from anyone... > > > (personally) I am not a big believer in lots of formal access > > control - but in social pressure and consensus building: > > you created some nice > > content - how can we help you stop other people mangling it ? > > I don't really know, Michael... You tell me? :-D Well perhaps it might be time to give you some clear title? :-) > > >> If you allow the site to be run in a chaotic, uncontrolled manner, > >> I think you'll lose a lot of the benefit it could otherwise bring > >> the foundation. > > > > True, so I wonder how we can help coax people into producing > > and editing in a tasteful and restrained way ? how can we build > > good taste, and/or asking-when-they-don't-know-the-answer into the > > community of editors ? > > Well, again, this is apparently the SC's "laisse-faire" / anarchical > style of community governance... or non-governance... so you tell me > the answers to those questions... ;-) > > It's a system that might work when you're dealing with just people of > goodwill and good intent... but we all know that there are always some > people with negative behaviors and attitudes... How is one supposed to > cope with them? There are never only people with good will. There are only an alignment of interests. But you are also quite right that sometimes these interests cannot be aligned. We might have been somewhat naive on this and we do need, I feel, much more management work on the lists. > > In practice, this anarchical "management style" did not build you a > website. When left to organize the work by themselves, the "website > team" did not build you any kind of website at all. > > It took nearly 3 months before LibreOffice got a website. And that was > due, in large part, to the bloody-minded obstinacy of one person. > > My humble 2 cents is that the SC's social experiment has proved a > failure. I don't think we wanted to do any social experiment. I think there was a mixture of lack of management and the reality of people arriving and not being educated in the way such a project works. > > And if you count on the same methods for the future management of your > website, I think you'll reap either more failure or - at best - a > mediocre result. I think these are going to change. > > I think I'd like to start a larger debate about where TDF is going > when i finished the work on the website and hand it back to you to > manage however you feel best. ;-) More email threads? :p > > > Does that help ? :-) > > Well, it gives me an idea of you guys' position... Thanks for that... > But so far it doesn't actually help as such, no... :-D > > In any case, thanks for your input. ;-) David I think you may have misunderstood Michael's message. I think he means that you get the keys of the website project and work with Christian, the design team, etc. pretty much get the job done. And I believe I would second that. So what d
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi all, may I jump in with a few experiences with a decade of OSS development and community mgmt (boy, do I feel important now :-)) On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:07:31 +0800, David Nelson wrote: > > Here is my clear idea: since you are doing the work - you get to own > > it, lead it, and those that don't like what you do get to gripe at you, > > and everyone else gets to back you up :-) [ if only to keep you > > motivated, happy and productive ;-]. > > I get the idea, but I'm not sure if it is really viable as a form of > management. For instance, me, I want to do *work* for the project. But > I don't want to spend more time writing to lists arguing with people, > etc, than actually doing useful work. > > My experience to date has been 90% debating by e-mail and 10% actual work... Right, may I suggest to give you the formal role of website dictatorship? This is basically what Michael suggests, and this way you can feel free to ignore many of the complaints (while still listening to good suggestions). In a community such as ours, many people talk (don't get me wrong, that often brings up excellent ideas) and only a few people tend to actually do the hard work. This allows you to filter comments and feedback, ignoring that of people that have a lot of comments, expressing themselves verbosely. > And I certainly didn't feel too much back up until the last few days... That is a pity if you felt left alone. Unfortunately, it seems that many are quite busy working on the code and giving the website lower priority (myself included, for instance). I do agree that is important and our portal to the public, so if giving *you* a formal leadership role would help you to justify website decisions to others, I don't see a reason why you shouldn't get that role. "CWO" (Chief Website Officer), "LOW boss" (LibreOffice Website boss", ... I am sure we'll find an appropriate title :). > At the moment, spending more time with my guitar sounds more inviting! ;-) Oh no :-). While I love guitar music, it would be great to continue having you on board and make some tough decisions :). What you have done so far looks really great. > I do see what you mean, but working on the website for the project has > not been a good experience so far... A whole lot of criticism, very > little useful support, very little practical help from anyone... Right, that's why Michael says "Power to the people that do actual work". He prefers an informal pecking order, you prefer formal roles. I am sure we can meet in the middle, and award you dictatorship with a few henchmen/stewarts whatsoever that you can appoint and dispose of based on the merit they bring the website team. > I don't really know, Michael... You tell me? :-D This might be wrong, and this might come across as condescent but some suggestions: - Ignore whiners that complain without being constructive - Listen to good suggestions and make decisions, implementing what you think - delegate tasks and award commit access to people that you feel are capable of working with you in a productive manner. - Don't try to make everyone happy but stay attentive to good suggestions. > Well, again, this is apparently the SC's "laisse-faire" / anarchical > style of community governance... or non-governance... so you tell me > the answers to those questions... ;-) I agree that not everyone should be able to modify the LO.org website, that is what we have a wiki for. So, you making decisions on awarding access to people that you trust (as they seem to actually contributing good stuff) seems like a good way. > In practice, this anarchical "management style" did not build you a > website. When left to organize the work by themselves, the "website > team" did not build you any kind of website at all. I agree that the "let the community build something" approach didn't (and still wouldn't work too well). It always takes someone to actually *do* something. You involuntarily volunteered for now :-), so you should have the power to decide who gets access to what. Until someone else offers to contribute more/better things than you, of course ;-). > It took nearly 3 months before LibreOffice got a website. And that was > due, in large part, to the bloody-minded obstinacy of one person. Yep, that's how things always end up to work, it seems. And that blood-minded obstinacy is much appreciated! > I think I'd like to start a larger debate about where TDF is going > when i finished the work on the website and hand it back to you to > manage however you feel best. ;-) I think these are really 2 different issues that both needs discussion, but should remain somewhat separated to lead to productive outcomes. I am not sure the "TDF is heading in the wrong direction as they still don't have a website" discussions (not by you) actially help here. Sebastian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/ww
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi Michael, :-) On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 05:36, Michael Meeks wrote: >> a clear decision about the management of the libreoffice.org >> website. It's an important tool for marketing. I have plenty of ideas >> about how to market with it > > Here is my clear idea: since you are doing the work - you get to own > it, lead it, and those that don't like what you do get to gripe at you, > and everyone else gets to back you up :-) [ if only to keep you > motivated, happy and productive ;-]. I get the idea, but I'm not sure if it is really viable as a form of management. For instance, me, I want to do *work* for the project. But I don't want to spend more time writing to lists arguing with people, etc, than actually doing useful work. My experience to date has been 90% debating by e-mail and 10% actual work... And I certainly didn't feel too much back up until the last few days... So I probably won't be tempted to carry on the work past my original goal of seeing the LibreOffice community with a website. At the moment, spending more time with my guitar sounds more inviting! ;-) >> and I would like to get a clear remit to work on that with you. Please >> can you read my post [1] on the SC list and contribute your thoughts on it? > > I read it - it had about five new formal roles in it - so I didn't like > it. I'd much prefer that you were the leader by dint of actually doing > all the hard work (like you are now) :-) I do see what you mean, but working on the website for the project has not been a good experience so far... A whole lot of criticism, very little useful support, very little practical help from anyone... > (personally) I am not a big believer in lots of formal access control - > but in social pressure and consensus building: > you created some nice > content - how can we help you stop other people mangling it ? I don't really know, Michael... You tell me? :-D >> If you allow the site to be run in a chaotic, uncontrolled manner, >> I think you'll lose a lot of the benefit it could otherwise bring >> the foundation. > > True, so I wonder how we can help coax people into producing and > editing in a tasteful and restrained way ? how can we build good taste, > and/or asking-when-they-don't-know-the-answer into the community of > editors ? Well, again, this is apparently the SC's "laisse-faire" / anarchical style of community governance... or non-governance... so you tell me the answers to those questions... ;-) It's a system that might work when you're dealing with just people of goodwill and good intent... but we all know that there are always some people with negative behaviors and attitudes... How is one supposed to cope with them? In practice, this anarchical "management style" did not build you a website. When left to organize the work by themselves, the "website team" did not build you any kind of website at all. It took nearly 3 months before LibreOffice got a website. And that was due, in large part, to the bloody-minded obstinacy of one person. My humble 2 cents is that the SC's social experiment has proved a failure. And if you count on the same methods for the future management of your website, I think you'll reap either more failure or - at best - a mediocre result. I think I'd like to start a larger debate about where TDF is going when i finished the work on the website and hand it back to you to manage however you feel best. ;-) > Does that help ? :-) Well, it gives me an idea of you guys' position... Thanks for that... But so far it doesn't actually help as such, no... :-D In any case, thanks for your input. ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi David, Mangling two mails together: On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 01:25 +0800, David Nelson wrote: > a clear decision about the management of the libreoffice.org > website. It's an important tool for marketing. I have plenty of ideas > about how to market with it Here is my clear idea: since you are doing the work - you get to own it, lead it, and those that don't like what you do get to gripe at you, and everyone else gets to back you up :-) [ if only to keep you motivated, happy and productive ;-]. > and I would like to get a clear remit to work on that with you. Please > can you read my post [1] on the SC list and contribute your thoughts on it? I read it - it had about five new formal roles in it - so I didn't like it. I'd much prefer that you were the leader by dint of actually doing all the hard work (like you are now) :-) Oh - and the only real comment I had was: IMHO developers should have access to quickly change / maintain their page as the code evolves; and (personally) I am not a big believer in lots of formal access control - but in social pressure and consensus building: you created some nice content - how can we help you stop other people mangling it ? > If you allow the site to be run in a chaotic, uncontrolled manner, > I think you'll lose a lot of the benefit it could otherwise bring > the foundation. True, so I wonder how we can help coax people into producing and editing in a tasteful and restrained way ? how can we build good taste, and/or asking-when-they-don't-know-the-answer into the community of editors ? Does that help ? :-) ATB, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- 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 ***
