Re: [libreoffice-projects] [Proposal] A central employment-office-like web structure for TDF/LibO volunteers
On 17/05/2011 11:11, Gianluca Turconi wrote: Sophie Gautier wrote: I'm not sure you will have feedback before having done something, see we're only two in the conversation for now. So lets implement a first draft and a description of the process, we may get more feedback later. OK, no problem. So let's refine what we were discussing so far. BTW, is there already any official or unofficial draft document that can be used for proposal like this, so that there is a homogeneous approval/rejection process for project proposals? No, I don't think so. Then: I think we are now agreeing that such "central system" has to be a wiki with a simplified template for direct access of the open tasks of the different projects. See below other thoughts of mine about different topics below. Yes *About coordinators* I think, but I may be wrong, that if we force developers directly to post their requests for help in a wiki, and "waste coding time", they may find that central system just useless and a duplication of bugzilla. There is already such a posting on the wiki for the easy hacks things: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Easy_Hacks So, I'm in favor of a more important role of the coordinators. They should actually gather the requests *and* post them in the wiki. Yes, I think both could be handled with no difficulty That would ease the whole work process. In fact, the current maintainers/contributors may send a simply email or compile a web form with their requests directed to a coordinator who, afterwards, will post them in the wiki. No further knowledge of the wiki (sections, tags, other formalities) would be needed for the current maintainers/contributors. Yes, the most difficult for a contributor would be to understand the structure of the system, more than the syntax of the wiki For wannabe contributors, the coordinators would be like the marketing contacts: people who are /trait d'union/ between outside and inside realities. Again, the coordinators may be contacted via email or web form or other means. Yes However, I think it's important, after the first contact and for more complex tasks (see classification below), to involve the new potential contributor in the larger discussion (mailing lists or via private mail with other developers/contributors). /me don't like private mail :) Mailing list, to get the archive and the information available to all is better, I think It may build (a kind of) loyalty and not just a one time contribution. +1 *About the granularity of classification of the requests for help* At the beginning of this discussion there were doubts about the manageability of a system that includes even 1-hour tasks. After further consideration, I agree too that it would be difficult to manage such system. Maybe, we need less granularity. We may classify the requests in a broader way according their difficulty and needed time to complete: Easy, Medium, Complex. a) Easy: basic skills needed, shortest time involved to complete them; b) Medium: average skills needed, average time involved to complete them; c) Complex: high level skills needed, longest time involved to complete them. So, the work flow in this central system should be: 1) a current maintainer/contributor contacts a coordinator via email/web form/any-chosen-mean and sends a request for help, by providing at least: 1a) a detailed description of the task; 1b) needed skills (i.e. specific coding language); 1c) estimated complexity of the task; 1d) possible deadline for contribution; Yes 2) the coordinator classify the request according the wiki classification (Web Level 1: skills needed; Web Level 2: Complexity; Web Level 3: list of tasks) Yes 3) a wannabe contributor picks a task up in the wiki and gives confirmation of such activity, via email/web form/modification of the wiki/other means; --> wiki has to be updated by the coordinator anyway 4) the coordinator, for more complex tasks or activities with a deadline, contacts the maintainers/contributors and communicate that the important/complex task has a new potential contributor. Automation of this phase would be greatly appreciated; Yes 5) the task is completed by the new contributor on his own or in collaboration with core contributors, and everybody are happy :) Yes, it seems :) 6) the coordinator regularly checks open, taken by new potential contributor, tasks and verify that there has not been any mistake in assignation or that the potential contributor has not lost interest. I think it's harder to write it down in this email than doing it as real process. ;) yes, but it's very clear, you have writer skills no? ;) BTW, I'm still puzzled from the @libreoffice.org @documentfoundation.org and @lists.freedesktop.org division for mailing lists. It's nearly a nightmare for a potential contributor to understand where to write and why. :( We could may be reduce the gap between @freedesktop and the @libreoffic
Re: [libreoffice-projects] [Proposal] A central employment-office-like web structure for TDF/LibO volunteers
Charles-H. Schulz wrote: So, I find this to be a very good idea:-) What should be done, at this stage? Write a proposal on the wiki? discuss it here? It obviously needs to go somewhere:) I've just sent a more detailed work flow idea in another message. Please, have a look at it. Regards, Gianluca -- Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza, fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale: http://www.letturefantastiche.com/ -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to projects+h...@libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/projects/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-projects] [Proposal] A central employment-office-like web structure for TDF/LibO volunteers
Sophie Gautier wrote: I'm not sure you will have feedback before having done something, see we're only two in the conversation for now. So lets implement a first draft and a description of the process, we may get more feedback later. OK, no problem. So let's refine what we were discussing so far. BTW, is there already any official or unofficial draft document that can be used for proposal like this, so that there is a homogeneous approval/rejection process for project proposals? Then: I think we are now agreeing that such "central system" has to be a wiki with a simplified template for direct access of the open tasks of the different projects. See below other thoughts of mine about different topics below. *About coordinators* I think, but I may be wrong, that if we force developers directly to post their requests for help in a wiki, and "waste coding time", they may find that central system just useless and a duplication of bugzilla. So, I'm in favor of a more important role of the coordinators. They should actually gather the requests *and* post them in the wiki. That would ease the whole work process. In fact, the current maintainers/contributors may send a simply email or compile a web form with their requests directed to a coordinator who, afterwards, will post them in the wiki. No further knowledge of the wiki (sections, tags, other formalities) would be needed for the current maintainers/contributors. For wannabe contributors, the coordinators would be like the marketing contacts: people who are /trait d'union/ between outside and inside realities. Again, the coordinators may be contacted via email or web form or other means. However, I think it's important, after the first contact and for more complex tasks (see classification below), to involve the new potential contributor in the larger discussion (mailing lists or via private mail with other developers/contributors). It may build (a kind of) loyalty and not just a one time contribution. *About the granularity of classification of the requests for help* At the beginning of this discussion there were doubts about the manageability of a system that includes even 1-hour tasks. After further consideration, I agree too that it would be difficult to manage such system. Maybe, we need less granularity. We may classify the requests in a broader way according their difficulty and needed time to complete: Easy, Medium, Complex. a) Easy: basic skills needed, shortest time involved to complete them; b) Medium: average skills needed, average time involved to complete them; c) Complex: high level skills needed, longest time involved to complete them. So, the work flow in this central system should be: 1) a current maintainer/contributor contacts a coordinator via email/web form/any-chosen-mean and sends a request for help, by providing at least: 1a) a detailed description of the task; 1b) needed skills (i.e. specific coding language); 1c) estimated complexity of the task; 1d) possible deadline for contribution; 2) the coordinator classify the request according the wiki classification (Web Level 1: skills needed; Web Level 2: Complexity; Web Level 3: list of tasks) 3) a wannabe contributor picks a task up in the wiki and gives confirmation of such activity, via email/web form/modification of the wiki/other means; 4) the coordinator, for more complex tasks or activities with a deadline, contacts the maintainers/contributors and communicate that the important/complex task has a new potential contributor. Automation of this phase would be greatly appreciated; 5) the task is completed by the new contributor on his own or in collaboration with core contributors, and everybody are happy :) 6) the coordinator regularly checks open, taken by new potential contributor, tasks and verify that there has not been any mistake in assignation or that the potential contributor has not lost interest. I think it's harder to write it down in this email than doing it as real process. ;) BTW, I'm still puzzled from the @libreoffice.org @documentfoundation.org and @lists.freedesktop.org division for mailing lists. It's nearly a nightmare for a potential contributor to understand where to write and why. :( We could may be reduce the gap between @freedesktop and the @libreoffice, but @documentfoundation is necessary for the TDF related discussions. Or may be it's not well enough documented, is that what you mean? How I'd like the LibO web site home page: [short description of what LibO, the software, is] 3 huge buttons: [Download] [Find Support] [Contribute] [short description of what TDF, the foundation, is] Then, under [Find Support]: [*all* support mailing list *with* @libreoffice.org suffix] [any other external and independent support system] Finally, under [Contribute], other 3 huge buttons: [Contribute money] -> Fund raising [Contribute your skills and time] -> the central e
Re: [libreoffice-projects] [Proposal] A central employment-office-like web structure for TDF/LibO volunteers
Hello there, 2011/5/16 Sophie Gautier > On 16/05/2011 15:54, Gianluca Turconi wrote: > >> Sophie Gautier wrote: >> >>> Yes. I'm more for a wiki than a bugzilla, unless you know one that has a >>> very nice interface and is not frightening for non technical >>> contributors. >>> >> >> Sincerely, I hate bugzilla. :) >> > > it's a good tool, but only a tool dedicated to a specific usage, we > shouldn't try to use it for something else than tracking bugs life and death > ;) > > > >> For non technical people it's a real barrier for contribution, IMO. >> > > yes > > >> However, summing up this initial brainstorming discussion: >> >> 1) a central employment-office-like web structure for TDF/LibO >> volunteers *may* improve efficiency in recruiting new contributors when >> maintainers and current contributors ask for help; >> >> 2) such web structure should be as easier as possible (likely a wiki) >> and as visible as possible (a user must be able to choose how and what >> to contribute in just few clicks), with a main division between >> technical (code) and non-technical (everything else) requests for help. >> Subsections may exist according to the requested skills to complete a >> particular task and/or the estimated time to complete a task so that a >> wannabe contributor can choose the most suitable task to which contribute. >> >> 3) in order not to overload the current maintainers that ask for help in >> the centralized system, we can: >> 3a) appoint some volunteers (coordinators) who will work as >> intermediaries between the current maintainer/contributors and the >> wannabe contributors *by posting* the received requests for help into >> the central system and *by confirming* the external offers or the >> completion of a task; >> 3b) appoint some volunteers who will work like moderators do in mailing >> list *by checking* (for consistency, tagging, form, and so on) the >> requests for help *already directly* posted by the >> maintainers/contributors into the central system. >> > > ok and thanks for the summary > > >> If we agree about this initial draft of the project, we may try to ask >> in webs...@libreoffice.org if/how/where it's possible to implement this >> idea and, above all, we should ask in other projects ML (all?) how much >> consensus there is about this idea, because, who knows, current >> contributors may prefer fragmentation (even language based one) rather >> than centralization. >> > > I'm not sure you will have feedback before having done something, see we're > only two in the conversation for now. So lets implement a first draft and a > description of the process, we may get more feedback later. > > >> BTW, I'm still puzzled from the @libreoffice.org @documentfoundation.org >> and @lists.freedesktop.org division for mailing lists. It's nearly a >> nightmare for a potential contributor to understand where to write and >> why. :( >> > > We could may be reduce the gap between @freedesktop and the @libreoffice, > but @documentfoundation is necessary for the TDF related discussions. Or may > be it's not well enough documented, is that what you mean? > > So, I find this to be a very good idea :-) What should be done, at this stage? Write a proposal on the wiki? discuss it here? It obviously needs to go somewhere :) Best, Charles. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to projects+h...@libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/projects/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
