RE : Re: [libreoffice-website] Regroup and further development of the website(s)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
Next » 12
Charles-H. Schulz Charles-H. Schulz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE : Re: [libreoffice-website] Regroup and further development of the website(s)

Michael,

The admins have run this since the beginning and I don't see why we should
host our website elsewhere. Now the website team has some people with admin
rights and that's how it works. It's actually the usual way to operate
elsewhere. What wouldyou suggest?

Charles

Le 4 janv. 2011, 1:04 PM, "Michael Wheatland" <[hidden email]> a
écrit :

> I can't answer for David, obviously, but I can say that the website and
the > infrastructure is ru...
I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, but this sounds like you are
suggesting that the website team has no autonomy, responsibility or
accountability.

It would be good to clarify this situation sooner rather than later,
as progress hinges on decisions.
As a group we need to know that any informed decisions we make can and
will be implemented without relying on outside parties to implement it
for us.

Would this autonomy hinge on us raising the funds to support our own
website infrastructure rather than relying on ODF servers?

Thanks,
Michael Wheatland

--

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
[hidden email]<website%[hidden email]>List
archive:
http://listarchives.l...

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Wheatbix Wheatbix
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE : Re: [libreoffice-website] Regroup and further development of the website(s)

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Charles-H. Schulz
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Michael,
>
> The admins have run this since the beginning and I don't see why we should
> host our website elsewhere. Now the website team has some people with admin
> rights and that's how it works. It's actually the usual way to operate
> elsewhere. What wouldyou suggest?

I am not suggesting changing anything as long as the website team has
the autonomy and authority to modify and improve our areas of
responsibility ourselves.
It was simply the suggestion that the Steering Committee would be kept
in the loop before the website team that seems disrespectful and
somewhat belittles the team.
Hence, the progress that David has made privately should be shared
with the website team as a whole to allow review and future
contributions from the whole team.

There are many people involved in this list who are keen to
contribute. Lets get them involved.
To do that, we need to be kept up to date with the Silverstripe site
progress and encourage collaboration, delegation and accountability.

Mike

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Charles-H. Schulz Charles-H. Schulz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regroup and further development of the website(s)

Michael,

Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 22:19:40 +0930,
Michael Wheatland <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Charles-H. Schulz
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Michael,
> >
> > The admins have run this since the beginning and I don't see why we
> > should host our website elsewhere. Now the website team has some
> > people with admin rights and that's how it works. It's actually the
> > usual way to operate elsewhere. What wouldyou suggest?
>
> I am not suggesting changing anything as long as the website team has
> the autonomy and authority to modify and improve our areas of
> responsibility ourselves.
> It was simply the suggestion that the Steering Committee would be kept
> in the loop before the website team that seems disrespectful and
> somewhat belittles the team.
> Hence, the progress that David has made privately should be shared
> with the website team as a whole to allow review and future
> contributions from the whole team.
>
> There are many people involved in this list who are keen to
> contribute. Lets get them involved.
> To do that, we need to be kept up to date with the Silverstripe site
> progress and encourage collaboration, delegation and accountability.

Absolutely :-)

Cheers,

Charles.
>
> Mike
>



--
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

marcpare4 marcpare4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regroup and further development of the website(s)

Le 2011-01-04 09:24, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :

> Michael,
>
> Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 22:19:40 +0930,
> Michael Wheatland<[hidden email]>  a écrit :
>
>> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Charles-H. Schulz
>> <[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> The admins have run this since the beginning and I don't see why we
>>> should host our website elsewhere. Now the website team has some
>>> people with admin rights and that's how it works. It's actually the
>>> usual way to operate elsewhere. What wouldyou suggest?
>>
>> I am not suggesting changing anything as long as the website team has
>> the autonomy and authority to modify and improve our areas of
>> responsibility ourselves.
>> It was simply the suggestion that the Steering Committee would be kept
>> in the loop before the website team that seems disrespectful and
>> somewhat belittles the team.
>> Hence, the progress that David has made privately should be shared
>> with the website team as a whole to allow review and future
>> contributions from the whole team.
>>
>> There are many people involved in this list who are keen to
>> contribute. Lets get them involved.
>> To do that, we need to be kept up to date with the Silverstripe site
>> progress and encourage collaboration, delegation and accountability.
>
> Absolutely :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Charles.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>

I also agree on this. The initial problem with the site was the lack of
participation on content not on running the site. The website team
should still be able to review/contribute as per normal.

Marc



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

klaus-jürgen weghorn ol klaus-jürgen weghorn ol
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regroup and further development of the website(s)

Hi all,
Am 04.01.2011 15:43, schrieb Marc Paré:

>>> There are many people involved in this list who are keen to
>>> contribute. Lets get them involved.
>>> To do that, we need to be kept up to date with the Silverstripe site
>>> progress and encourage collaboration, delegation and accountability.
>>
>> Absolutely :-)
>
> I also agree on this. The initial problem with the site was the lack of
> participation on content not on running the site. The website team
> should still be able to review/contribute as per normal.
Maybe it is a lack of my English but I don't understand this note.
There were many weeks/months in which nobody do something on the content
of the website although e.g. Christian call/cry for content.
Christian and Stefan (as I remember) built the download and some other
scripts because no one else do the job. Then David took him a heart and
made content in order to get a site which we can present in time.
The site with the content is up since December 24th. There was many time
to discuss about the content.
And now you tell that the website team has no possibility for
participation on content?
I think that everybody of the "website team" who wants to
review/contribute has an account to libreoffice.org with
author/publisher rights. Do it, "website team" (but think of the note of
David who requests to wait until January 10th.)

Greetings
k-j

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

marcpare4 marcpare4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regroup and further development of the website(s)

Le 2011-01-04 15:19, ol klaus-jürgen weghorn a écrit :

Hi:

> Hi all,
> Am 04.01.2011 15:43, schrieb Marc Paré:
>>>> There are many people involved in this list who are keen to
>>>> contribute. Lets get them involved.
>>>> To do that, we need to be kept up to date with the Silverstripe site
>>>> progress and encourage collaboration, delegation and accountability.
>>>
>>> Absolutely :-)
>>
>> I also agree on this. The initial problem with the site was the lack of
>> participation on content not on running the site. The website team
>> should still be able to review/contribute as per normal.
> Maybe it is a lack of my English but I don't understand this note.
> There were many weeks/months in which nobody do something on the content
> of the website although e.g. Christian call/cry for content.
> Christian and Stefan (as I remember) built the download and some other
> scripts because no one else do the job. Then David took him a heart and
> made content in order to get a site which we can present in time.
> The site with the content is up since December 24th. There was many time
> to discuss about the content.
> And now you tell that the website team has no possibility for
> participation on content?
> I think that everybody of the "website team" who wants to
> review/contribute has an account to libreoffice.org with
> author/publisher rights. Do it, "website team" (but think of the note of
> David who requests to wait until January 10th.)
>
> Greetings
> k-j
>

Yes, we are waiting till the January 10th as requested by David. For the
record, some of us did start adding content, I for one had worked on the
"Support" section but left it to David once he reorganised that section.

Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Wheatbix Wheatbix
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regroup and further development of the website(s)

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Marc Paré <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Le 2011-01-04 15:19, ol klaus-jürgen weghorn a écrit :
>
> Hi:
>
>> Hi all,
>> Am 04.01.2011 15:43, schrieb Marc Paré:
>>>>>
>>>>> There are many people involved in this list who are keen to
>>>>> contribute. Lets get them involved.
>>>>> To do that, we need to be kept up to date with the Silverstripe site
>>>>> progress and encourage collaboration, delegation and accountability.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely :-)
>>>
>>> I also agree on this. The initial problem with the site was the lack of
>>> participation on content not on running the site. The website team
>>> should still be able to review/contribute as per normal.
>>
>> Maybe it is a lack of my English but I don't understand this note.
>> There were many weeks/months in which nobody do something on the content
>> of the website although e.g. Christian call/cry for content.
>> Christian and Stefan (as I remember) built the download and some other
>> scripts because no one else do the job. Then David took him a heart and
>> made content in order to get a site which we can present in time.
>> The site with the content is up since December 24th. There was many time
>> to discuss about the content.
>> And now you tell that the website team has no possibility for
>> participation on content?
>> I think that everybody of the "website team" who wants to
>> review/contribute has an account to libreoffice.org with
>> author/publisher rights. Do it, "website team" (but think of the note of
>> David who requests to wait until January 10th.)
>>
>> Greetings
>> k-j
>>
>
> Yes, we are waiting till the January 10th as requested by David. For the
> record, some of us did start adding content, I for one had worked on the
> "Support" section but left it to David once he reorganised that section.

So it sounds like there is a consensus, after the 10th the website
team will, after the brief from David, do a review on the progress.

In the absense of a Silverstripe team lead, I will try to coordinate
the ideas and change management that comes from this review on the
wiki in the same way it has been done on the Drupal development.

I am looking forward to us getting organised again in the new year in
order to finalise this site as well as start building the LibreOffice
community infrastructure of the future.
Thanks all,

Michael Wheatland

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
davidnelson davidnelson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regroup and further development of the website(s)

Hi Michael, :-)

Just to let you know, I'm currently an admin on the SilverStripe site,
and plan to be *actively* involved in the development of the content.
My humble suggestion would be just to have a little patience until the
10th, and then we can figure out how to take things from there. ;-)

David Nelson

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

marcpare4 marcpare4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regroup and further development of the website(s)

Le 2011-01-04 20:37, David Nelson a écrit :
> Hi Michael, :-)
>
> Just to let you know, I'm currently an admin on the SilverStripe site,
> and plan to be *actively* involved in the development of the content.
> My humble suggestion would be just to have a little patience until the
> 10th, and then we can figure out how to take things from there. ;-)
>
> David Nelson
>

Hi Michael and David:

I agree with David on this point. I think we should just let Jan. 10th
arrive and from there we can all take stock of the site and plan
accordingly. Let's leave David complete his work on the site as the
delivery date is pretty well on our doorstep.

And yes, I do agree with Michael, there should be a more organised
process so that we can all share as a community.

Cheers

Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Wheatbix Wheatbix
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regroup and further development of the website(s)

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Marc Paré <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Le 2011-01-04 20:37, David Nelson a écrit :
>
>  Hi Michael, :-)
>>
>> Just to let you know, I'm currently an admin on the SilverStripe site,
>> and plan to be *actively* involved in the development of the content.
>> My humble suggestion would be just to have a little patience until the
>> 10th, and then we can figure out how to take things from there. ;-)
>>
>> David Nelson
>>
>>
> Hi Michael and David:
>
> I agree with David on this point. I think we should just let Jan. 10th
> arrive and from there we can all take stock of the site and plan
> accordingly. Let's leave David complete his work on the site as the delivery
> date is pretty well on our doorstep.
>
> And yes, I do agree with Michael, there should be a more organised process
> so that we can all share as a community.
>
> Cheers
>
> Marc


Totally agreed.
I am very keen to see what has been done and where we as a team can
contribute to continually improving what we have.

Mike

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
bedipp bedipp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regroup and further development of the website(s)

In reply to this post by Wheatbix
Hi Mike, all,

just a few points I want to mention...
They are my personal opinion, but having been part of the OOo community
for quite a number of years, I'm quite sure that they are shared by
other people too.

Michael Wheatland schrieb:

> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Charles-H. Schulz
> <[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> Michael,
>>
>> The admins have run this since the beginning and I don't see why we should
>> host our website elsewhere. Now the website team has some people with admin
>> rights and that's how it works. It's actually the usual way to operate
>> elsewhere. What wouldyou suggest?
>
> I am not suggesting changing anything as long as the website team has
> the autonomy and authority to modify and improve our areas of
> responsibility ourselves.

The present website team consists of the people working on the website
and improving it.

Your activities have been a different main focus in the past, so it is
great to have you on board again.

When David presented his first iteration of the website, he had to face
some comments on different parts of his work. He tried to reply to quite
a number of postings here on the list, but he couldn't see a common
direction in the comments, so discussions led to nothing than more
discussions.

As we urgently need the website and most of us think it has to be
improved sooner than later, David started a new iteration of the site.

He asked the SC for their approval to work on the site until the 10th of
January and he wanted to hand it over to the community at this time.

Probably because there have not been an active website team, but only a
few people commenting the now active website in different directions, he
asked the SC to be the responsible group to accept the website.

> It was simply the suggestion that the Steering Committee would be kept
> in the loop before the website team that seems disrespectful and
> somewhat belittles the team.

You might see it different, but there is no active website team at the
moment except the few people working on the site.

The website team didn't manage to create content for the main site for
several weeks, so we have to doubt, if there is a team at all.

We will create the team in a few days, as I'm very sure that the SC will
accept the website created by David and Ivan who supports him at the
moment.

As this new version will contain address of our concerns for the present
website, the new website team will be able to work on improvements
continuously.

I don't know if we need a formal "lead" as the LibO community tries to
avoid hierarchical structures. Decisions are based on merit instead:
People who have actively worked on a certain task have the most
important voice in decisions about this topic.

The website needs a group of people taking care of it's quality, because
this is the first and most prominent area where potential users and
contributors contact LibreOffice.

This group has to consist of specialists in webdesign, user experience,
marketing and documentation, and I'm quite sure that you will be a
relevant part of this group once you have shown your active contribution
to *this* area of work.

We will have a new active website team - let's start working after the 10th.

> Hence, the progress that David has made privately should be shared
> with the website team as a whole to allow review and future
> contributions from the whole team.

It will be shared after the 10th (as I already mentioned above, the SC
will not refuse Davids and Ivan's great work).

Review and future contributions will be done by the new team - following
the recommendations of the experts mentioned above.
>
> There are many people involved in this list who are keen to
> contribute. Lets get them involved.

I truly hope so, even if the past did prove the opposite...

> To do that, we need to be kept up to date with the Silverstripe site
> progress and encourage collaboration, delegation and accountability.

Even if David is working on a sandbox site, his progress can be looked
at, as the link to the site has already been posted here on the list.

He's probably doing more work in the background, so the site is not at
the bleeding edge, but as he asked us to wait with comments three more
days, I don't think that this causes any problems.

(I don't repeat the link here - if you think it is important to have a
look at it *now*, you'll find it in the archives).

If we'll have an active team from the 10th on, the future workflow will
not only concentrate on improving the content, but in involving (new)
community contributors too.

Best regards

Bernhard

PS: Please remember: My personal opinion only!

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
marcpare4 marcpare4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regroup and further development of the website(s)

Le 2011-01-06 21:05, Bernhard Dippold a écrit :

Hi Bernhard, thanks for your comments and opinions. I also leave my
opinions on this matter then, and I would not be surprised if others
will also leave their comments as well.

> Hi Mike, all,
>
> just a few points I want to mention...
> They are my personal opinion, but having been part of the OOo community
> for quite a number of years, I'm quite sure that they are shared by
> other people too.

Maybe some but not all people. The LibO community has grown with new
members, which is what the LibreOffice is also all about. Some of us
have no prior knowledge of problems with the OOo. Knowing/informed of
prior problems with OOo is great for insight, but new people may have
fresh ideas that they bring to the new LibreOffice group. This will add
vibrancy to the group and give it more of a "forward looking" view of
LibreOffice and its communities.

>
> Michael Wheatland schrieb:
>> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Charles-H. Schulz
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> The admins have run this since the beginning and I don't see why we
>>> should
>>> host our website elsewhere. Now the website team has some people with
>>> admin
>>> rights and that's how it works. It's actually the usual way to operate
>>> elsewhere. What wouldyou suggest?
>>
>> I am not suggesting changing anything as long as the website team has
>> the autonomy and authority to modify and improve our areas of
>> responsibility ourselves.
>
> The present website team consists of the people working on the website
> and improving it.
>
> Your activities have been a different main focus in the past, so it is
> great to have you on board again.
>
> When David presented his first iteration of the website, he had to face
> some comments on different parts of his work. He tried to reply to quite
> a number of postings here on the list, but he couldn't see a common
> direction in the comments, so discussions led to nothing than more
> discussions.
>
> As we urgently need the website and most of us think it has to be
> improved sooner than later, David started a new iteration of the site.
>
> He asked the SC for their approval to work on the site until the 10th of
> January and he wanted to hand it over to the community at this time.
>
> Probably because there have not been an active website team, but only a
> few people commenting the now active website in different directions, he
> asked the SC to be the responsible group to accept the website.
>

I beg to differ. There was a group of website members willing to help
out and had their names listed on the Silverstripe team wiki page
membership roster. Now, I can no longer seem to find the wiki page, you
only have to re-read the thread on the website discussion list titled:
"[libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS" to get a feeling of who
had volunteered/offered help with the site. Just in case you are too
busy to re-reread this voluminous thread, as I was the one who also
helped in organising the initial wiki page with the pro/cons of the
remaining contending CMS' as well as the section with the website
Silverstripe and Drupal teams (Christian had originally started the
page), you could either filter the thread on my last name "pare" to see
the development of the CMS member volunteer discussions or I have listed
the particular posts talking of offers of help here:

http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/410
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/460
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/487
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/462
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/406
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/461
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/465
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/467 


As you can see there were some members who had offered their help, some
of whom, very experienced in website building. Again, I had personally
worked on a section of the site adding content. It was only later that
David asked for a larger role in order to complete adding content. It
was at this point that we all stood back and agreed to unfettered
control to David so that he could complete this task (as agreed by the SC).

I myself was/am a little concerned that these situations should, at
best, be avoided in the future as it does not promote to the community
aspect to the project. We may risk losing capable members if they see
their role in the LibreOffice diminished this way. A community
involvement should always be the option for all parts of LibreOffice ...
is this not what we signed up for? But OK, the SC decided on this path
which will result in the CMS of Jan. 10th.

>> It was simply the suggestion that the Steering Committee would be kept
>> in the loop before the website team that seems disrespectful and
>> somewhat belittles the team.
>
> You might see it different, but there is no active website team at the
> moment except the few people working on the site.
>
> The website team didn't manage to create content for the main site for
> several weeks, so we have to doubt, if there is a team at all.

I can only speak for myself on this point. We were assured that a
working website would be available in short after the SC had decided on
a Silverstripe CMS start. I assumed, naively, that there was a content
team ready to pour content into the site. I therefore spent time with
the Drupal team. It was only later that I realised there was no content
team for the international site (English) and that the German and French
teams had in fact added sufficiently amount of content themselves to go
live! At this point I jumped in and started helping out. Note that there
had already been calls for better guidance in the marketing confcall or
at least a list of tasks to be taken care of, but none was ever produced.

When there is no organisation, then there is no action and a loss of
collective contribution. There has to be better organised methods used
if we are to get anywhere. Proof that organising works is the recent
movement to organise all teams with a tasks list
(http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing/Release) targetted to the
release(s) of LibO distro(s). We are all better equipped to work this
way. Many thanks to the person who organised this list of tasks.

>
> We will create the team in a few days, as I'm very sure that the SC will
> accept the website created by David and Ivan who supports him at the
> moment.
>
> As this new version will contain address of our concerns for the present
> website, the new website team will be able to work on improvements
> continuously.
>
> I don't know if we need a formal "lead" as the LibO community tries to
> avoid hierarchical structures. Decisions are based on merit instead:
> People who have actively worked on a certain task have the most
> important voice in decisions about this topic.
>
> The website needs a group of people taking care of it's quality, because
> this is the first and most prominent area where potential users and
> contributors contact LibreOffice.
>
> This group has to consist of specialists in webdesign, user experience,
> marketing and documentation, and I'm quite sure that you will be a
> relevant part of this group once you have shown your active contribution
> to *this* area of work.

Perhaps then we should revisit this. There have already been discussions
on the documentation team of a documentation lead. Italo is our defacto
lead with the marketing team (we have ablsolutely no problem with this).
This seems to work quite well with these teams. Why would there not be
this kind of leadership role for the website team? As you state, this is
the "first and most prominent area" of LibreOffice.

>
> We will have a new active website team - let's start working after the
> 10th.
>
>> Hence, the progress that David has made privately should be shared
>> with the website team as a whole to allow review and future
>> contributions from the whole team.
>
> It will be shared after the 10th (as I already mentioned above, the SC
> will not refuse Davids and Ivan's great work).
>
> Review and future contributions will be done by the new team - following
> the recommendations of the experts mentioned above.
>>
>> There are many people involved in this list who are keen to
>> contribute. Lets get them involved.
>
> I truly hope so, even if the past did prove the opposite...
>
>> To do that, we need to be kept up to date with the Silverstripe site
>> progress and encourage collaboration, delegation and accountability.
>
> Even if David is working on a sandbox site, his progress can be looked
> at, as the link to the site has already been posted here on the list.
>
> He's probably doing more work in the background, so the site is not at
> the bleeding edge, but as he asked us to wait with comments three more
> days, I don't think that this causes any problems.
>
> (I don't repeat the link here - if you think it is important to have a
> look at it *now*, you'll find it in the archives).

Here it is, in case anyone missed it: http://188.40.32.145:7780/ . This
is public knowledge for the website list and was given out by David
here:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.design/176

>
> If we'll have an active team from the 10th on, the future workflow will
> not only concentrate on improving the content, but in involving (new)
> community contributors too.
>
> Best regards
>
> Bernhard
>
> PS: Please remember: My personal opinion only!
>

My opinions as well.

Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
sophi sophi
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regroup and further development of the website(s)

Hi,

On 07/01/2011 10:17, Marc Paré wrote:
[...]

> When there is no organisation, then there is no action and a loss of
> collective contribution. There has to be better organised methods used
> if we are to get anywhere. Proof that organising works is the recent
> movement to organise all teams with a tasks list
> (http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing/Release) targetted to the
> release(s) of LibO distro(s). We are all better equipped to work this
> way. Many thanks to the person who organised this list of tasks.

argh, as I'm the one who has committed this, please let me explain that
this is not organization, it's only information. It's not because it's
on the wiki that it's done.
This page only means: Now that you know what needs to be done, you are
responsible to act or not. No need to be entitled of whatever name for
that. And you don't need to wait for somebody to tell you what to do.
It's here, do it or leave it to someone else.

>
>>
>> We will create the team in a few days, as I'm very sure that the SC will
>> accept the website created by David and Ivan who supports him at the
>> moment.
>>
>> As this new version will contain address of our concerns for the present
>> website, the new website team will be able to work on improvements
>> continuously.
>>
>> I don't know if we need a formal "lead" as the LibO community tries to
>> avoid hierarchical structures. Decisions are based on merit instead:
>> People who have actively worked on a certain task have the most
>> important voice in decisions about this topic.
>>
>> The website needs a group of people taking care of it's quality, because
>> this is the first and most prominent area where potential users and
>> contributors contact LibreOffice.
>>
>> This group has to consist of specialists in webdesign, user experience,
>> marketing and documentation, and I'm quite sure that you will be a
>> relevant part of this group once you have shown your active contribution
>> to *this* area of work.
>
> Perhaps then we should revisit this. There have already been discussions
> on the documentation team of a documentation lead. Italo is our defacto
> lead with the marketing team (we have ablsolutely no problem with this).
> This seems to work quite well with these teams. Why would there not be
> this kind of leadership role for the website team? As you state, this is
> the "first and most prominent area" of LibreOffice.

We don't need formal leads, we need people able to act and be
responsible in front of the whole community or the whole project if you
prefer. If somebody claims to be member of the website team, whatever he
prefers to do, he should work on what *has to be done*. It's just a
matter of commitment to the group. You can lead a task one day and not
the other, and it reflects more how an open source project is working.

Kind regards
Sophie
--
Founding member of The Document Foundation

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
marcpare4 marcpare4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regroup and further development of the website(s)

Le 2011-01-07 02:43, Sophie Gautier a écrit :

Hi Sophie:

> Hi,
>
> On 07/01/2011 10:17, Marc Paré wrote:
> [...]
>
>> When there is no organisation, then there is no action and a loss of
>> collective contribution. There has to be better organised methods used
>> if we are to get anywhere. Proof that organising works is the recent
>> movement to organise all teams with a tasks list
>> (http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing/Release) targetted to the
>> release(s) of LibO distro(s). We are all better equipped to work this
>> way. Many thanks to the person who organised this list of tasks.
>
> argh, as I'm the one who has committed this, please let me explain that
> this is not organization, it's only information. It's not because it's
> on the wiki that it's done.
> This page only means: Now that you know what needs to be done, you are
> responsible to act or not. No need to be entitled of whatever name for
> that. And you don't need to wait for somebody to tell you what to do.
> It's here, do it or leave it to someone else.

Thanks. It does however give the group a starting point and direction.
This is what was meant. It is more productive to get some help from the
seasoned stakeholders and move on from there. Which is why this is so
important to get the group moving in one direction.

And yes, I did understand the reason for which you did this.

>>
>>>
>>> We will create the team in a few days, as I'm very sure that the SC will
>>> accept the website created by David and Ivan who supports him at the
>>> moment.
>>>
>>> As this new version will contain address of our concerns for the present
>>> website, the new website team will be able to work on improvements
>>> continuously.
>>>
>>> I don't know if we need a formal "lead" as the LibO community tries to
>>> avoid hierarchical structures. Decisions are based on merit instead:
>>> People who have actively worked on a certain task have the most
>>> important voice in decisions about this topic.
>>>
>>> The website needs a group of people taking care of it's quality, because
>>> this is the first and most prominent area where potential users and
>>> contributors contact LibreOffice.
>>>
>>> This group has to consist of specialists in webdesign, user experience,
>>> marketing and documentation, and I'm quite sure that you will be a
>>> relevant part of this group once you have shown your active contribution
>>> to *this* area of work.
>>
>> Perhaps then we should revisit this. There have already been discussions
>> on the documentation team of a documentation lead. Italo is our defacto
>> lead with the marketing team (we have ablsolutely no problem with this).
>> This seems to work quite well with these teams. Why would there not be
>> this kind of leadership role for the website team? As you state, this is
>> the "first and most prominent area" of LibreOffice.
>
> We don't need formal leads, we need people able to act and be
> responsible in front of the whole community or the whole project if you
> prefer. If somebody claims to be member of the website team, whatever he
> prefers to do, he should work on what *has to be done*. It's just a
> matter of commitment to the group. You can lead a task one day and not
> the other, and it reflects more how an open source project is working.
>
> Kind regards
> Sophie

Personally, I would see leads more as in a mentorship role to the teams.
If the teams get too way off track, the lead would step in and add words
of wisdom as well as play an active role in role modelling. There is no
need to vote on any lead, leaders just shine by themselves and promote
community growth.

Cheers

Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Christoph Noack Christoph Noack
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regroup and further development of the website(s)

Hi Marc, all!

Am Freitag, den 07.01.2011, 02:58 -0500 schrieb Marc Paré:
> Le 2011-01-07 02:43, Sophie Gautier a écrit :
> > On 07/01/2011 10:17, Marc Paré wrote:
> > [...]
[...]

> > argh, as I'm the one who has committed this, please let me explain that
> > this is not organization, it's only information. It's not because it's
> > on the wiki that it's done.
> > This page only means: Now that you know what needs to be done, you are
> > responsible to act or not. No need to be entitled of whatever name for
> > that. And you don't need to wait for somebody to tell you what to do.
> > It's here, do it or leave it to someone else.
>
> Thanks. It does however give the group a starting point and direction.
> This is what was meant. It is more productive to get some help from the
> seasoned stakeholders and move on from there. Which is why this is so
> important to get the group moving in one direction.

Maybe a thought, because you already wrote about new members, fresh
ideas, ... within the LibreOffice community. We all value these ideas;
some of these are new to us (great!), some of these have been discussed
numerous times before. Despite the TDF changes, some things won't change
by nature ... so some ideas won't work in our community, or may require
a lot more time to evolve.

Sophie provided the wiki page - which is both excellent in content and
availability (I owe her respect for her time management *g*). As far as
I understand, you value this a starting point and a direction - which is
great to see.

Nevertheless, what I don't understand is, that many of the other
comments within mails - also by Sophie, or Bernhard, or other long-time
contributors - are missed or treated differently. And although we do
need "a breath of fresh air" (a.k.a. community), this support may be as
valuable as "wiki content". We are happy to share our experience.

[...]
> > We don't need formal leads, we need people able to act and be
> > responsible in front of the whole community or the whole project if you
> > prefer. If somebody claims to be member of the website team, whatever he
> > prefers to do, he should work on what *has to be done*. It's just a
> > matter of commitment to the group. You can lead a task one day and not
> > the other, and it reflects more how an open source project is working.

[...]

> Personally, I would see leads more as in a mentorship role to the teams.
> If the teams get too way off track, the lead would step in and add words
> of wisdom as well as play an active role in role modelling. There is no
> need to vote on any lead, leaders just shine by themselves and promote
> community growth.

Absolutely! I also prefer the terms "guidance", "support" or
"mentoring". Although the current situation makes it a bit hard to
"shine by themselves" - you already stated that many of you are new to
LibreOffice, and you don't know the experience of other people. It gets
an "chicken and egg" problem as we can see on some mailing lists :-)

In our LibO/TDF situation, I am fine to (temporarily) highlight a few
people who are known specialists for certain topics (within our
community), and are also known to be heavily involved since quite some
time. Would that be helpful? What do you think?

Cheers,
Christoph


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Charles-H. Schulz Charles-H. Schulz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regroup and further development of the website(s)

In reply to this post by marcpare4
Marc,

When all is said and done, only contributions will matter. Not rants.
No requests for preseances, titles,etc. Sophie hinted that it wasn't
about hierarchy, it was about information. That's true. I would add
to this: getting the job done. What job have you done?  

I can't help but noticing you've been writing a whole list of emails
trying to prove your points. Such an energy spent in yet another
discussion. I'm somewhat disappointed by this attitude, because in the
end, it gets us nowhere.

So instead of wondering whether you should be the judge of the website
before the SC or have some sort of say over this or that, please try to
think on how you could genuinely help. Let's not be what the
francophones call "un inspecteur des travaux finis"...

Thank you,

Charles.


Le Fri, 07 Jan 2011 02:17:13 -0500,
Marc Paré <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Le 2011-01-06 21:05, Bernhard Dippold a écrit :
>
> Hi Bernhard, thanks for your comments and opinions. I also leave my
> opinions on this matter then, and I would not be surprised if others
> will also leave their comments as well.
>
> > Hi Mike, all,
> >
> > just a few points I want to mention...
> > They are my personal opinion, but having been part of the OOo
> > community for quite a number of years, I'm quite sure that they are
> > shared by other people too.
>
> Maybe some but not all people. The LibO community has grown with new
> members, which is what the LibreOffice is also all about. Some of us
> have no prior knowledge of problems with the OOo. Knowing/informed of
> prior problems with OOo is great for insight, but new people may have
> fresh ideas that they bring to the new LibreOffice group. This will
> add vibrancy to the group and give it more of a "forward looking"
> view of LibreOffice and its communities.
>
> >
> > Michael Wheatland schrieb:
> >> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Charles-H. Schulz
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> Michael,
> >>>
> >>> The admins have run this since the beginning and I don't see why
> >>> we should
> >>> host our website elsewhere. Now the website team has some people
> >>> with admin
> >>> rights and that's how it works. It's actually the usual way to
> >>> operate elsewhere. What wouldyou suggest?
> >>
> >> I am not suggesting changing anything as long as the website team
> >> has the autonomy and authority to modify and improve our areas of
> >> responsibility ourselves.
> >
> > The present website team consists of the people working on the
> > website and improving it.
> >
> > Your activities have been a different main focus in the past, so it
> > is great to have you on board again.
> >
> > When David presented his first iteration of the website, he had to
> > face some comments on different parts of his work. He tried to
> > reply to quite a number of postings here on the list, but he
> > couldn't see a common direction in the comments, so discussions led
> > to nothing than more discussions.
> >
> > As we urgently need the website and most of us think it has to be
> > improved sooner than later, David started a new iteration of the
> > site.
> >
> > He asked the SC for their approval to work on the site until the
> > 10th of January and he wanted to hand it over to the community at
> > this time.
> >
> > Probably because there have not been an active website team, but
> > only a few people commenting the now active website in different
> > directions, he asked the SC to be the responsible group to accept
> > the website.
> >
>
> I beg to differ. There was a group of website members willing to help
> out and had their names listed on the Silverstripe team wiki page
> membership roster. Now, I can no longer seem to find the wiki page,
> you only have to re-read the thread on the website discussion list
> titled: "[libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS" to get a
> feeling of who had volunteered/offered help with the site. Just in
> case you are too busy to re-reread this voluminous thread, as I was
> the one who also helped in organising the initial wiki page with the
> pro/cons of the remaining contending CMS' as well as the section with
> the website Silverstripe and Drupal teams (Christian had originally
> started the page), you could either filter the thread on my last name
> "pare" to see the development of the CMS member volunteer discussions
> or I have listed the particular posts talking of offers of help here:
>
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/410
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/460
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/487
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/462
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/406
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/461
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/465
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/467 
>
>
> As you can see there were some members who had offered their help,
> some of whom, very experienced in website building. Again, I had
> personally worked on a section of the site adding content. It was
> only later that David asked for a larger role in order to complete
> adding content. It was at this point that we all stood back and
> agreed to unfettered control to David so that he could complete this
> task (as agreed by the SC).
>
> I myself was/am a little concerned that these situations should, at
> best, be avoided in the future as it does not promote to the
> community aspect to the project. We may risk losing capable members
> if they see their role in the LibreOffice diminished this way. A
> community involvement should always be the option for all parts of
> LibreOffice ... is this not what we signed up for? But OK, the SC
> decided on this path which will result in the CMS of Jan. 10th.
>
> >> It was simply the suggestion that the Steering Committee would be
> >> kept in the loop before the website team that seems disrespectful
> >> and somewhat belittles the team.
> >
> > You might see it different, but there is no active website team at
> > the moment except the few people working on the site.
> >
> > The website team didn't manage to create content for the main site
> > for several weeks, so we have to doubt, if there is a team at all.
>
> I can only speak for myself on this point. We were assured that a
> working website would be available in short after the SC had decided
> on a Silverstripe CMS start. I assumed, naively, that there was a
> content team ready to pour content into the site. I therefore spent
> time with the Drupal team. It was only later that I realised there
> was no content team for the international site (English) and that the
> German and French teams had in fact added sufficiently amount of
> content themselves to go live! At this point I jumped in and started
> helping out. Note that there had already been calls for better
> guidance in the marketing confcall or at least a list of tasks to be
> taken care of, but none was ever produced.
>
> When there is no organisation, then there is no action and a loss of
> collective contribution. There has to be better organised methods
> used if we are to get anywhere. Proof that organising works is the
> recent movement to organise all teams with a tasks list
> (http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing/Release) targetted to
> the release(s) of LibO distro(s). We are all better equipped to work
> this way. Many thanks to the person who organised this list of tasks.
>
> >
> > We will create the team in a few days, as I'm very sure that the SC
> > will accept the website created by David and Ivan who supports him
> > at the moment.
> >
> > As this new version will contain address of our concerns for the
> > present website, the new website team will be able to work on
> > improvements continuously.
> >
> > I don't know if we need a formal "lead" as the LibO community tries
> > to avoid hierarchical structures. Decisions are based on merit
> > instead: People who have actively worked on a certain task have the
> > most important voice in decisions about this topic.
> >
> > The website needs a group of people taking care of it's quality,
> > because this is the first and most prominent area where potential
> > users and contributors contact LibreOffice.
> >
> > This group has to consist of specialists in webdesign, user
> > experience, marketing and documentation, and I'm quite sure that
> > you will be a relevant part of this group once you have shown your
> > active contribution to *this* area of work.
>
> Perhaps then we should revisit this. There have already been
> discussions on the documentation team of a documentation lead. Italo
> is our defacto lead with the marketing team (we have ablsolutely no
> problem with this). This seems to work quite well with these teams.
> Why would there not be this kind of leadership role for the website
> team? As you state, this is the "first and most prominent area" of
> LibreOffice.
>
> >
> > We will have a new active website team - let's start working after
> > the 10th.
> >
> >> Hence, the progress that David has made privately should be shared
> >> with the website team as a whole to allow review and future
> >> contributions from the whole team.
> >
> > It will be shared after the 10th (as I already mentioned above, the
> > SC will not refuse Davids and Ivan's great work).
> >
> > Review and future contributions will be done by the new team -
> > following the recommendations of the experts mentioned above.
> >>
> >> There are many people involved in this list who are keen to
> >> contribute. Lets get them involved.
> >
> > I truly hope so, even if the past did prove the opposite...
> >
> >> To do that, we need to be kept up to date with the Silverstripe
> >> site progress and encourage collaboration, delegation and
> >> accountability.
> >
> > Even if David is working on a sandbox site, his progress can be
> > looked at, as the link to the site has already been posted here on
> > the list.
> >
> > He's probably doing more work in the background, so the site is not
> > at the bleeding edge, but as he asked us to wait with comments
> > three more days, I don't think that this causes any problems.
> >
> > (I don't repeat the link here - if you think it is important to
> > have a look at it *now*, you'll find it in the archives).
>
> Here it is, in case anyone missed it: http://188.40.32.145:7780/ .
> This is public knowledge for the website list and was given out by
> David here:
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.design/176
>
> >
> > If we'll have an active team from the 10th on, the future workflow
> > will not only concentrate on improving the content, but in
> > involving (new) community contributors too.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Bernhard
> >
> > PS: Please remember: My personal opinion only!
> >
>
> My opinions as well.
>
> Marc
>
>



--
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

marcpare4 marcpare4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regroup and further development of the website(s)

Le 2011-01-07 07:17, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :

> Marc,
>
> When all is said and done, only contributions will matter. Not rants.
> No requests for preseances, titles,etc. Sophie hinted that it wasn't
> about hierarchy, it was about information. That's true. I would add
> to this: getting the job done. What job have you done?
>
> I can't help but noticing you've been writing a whole list of emails
> trying to prove your points. Such an energy spent in yet another
> discussion. I'm somewhat disappointed by this attitude, because in the
> end, it gets us nowhere.
>
> So instead of wondering whether you should be the judge of the website
> before the SC or have some sort of say over this or that, please try to
> think on how you could genuinely help. Let's not be what the
> francophones call "un inspecteur des travaux finis"...
>
> Thank you,
>
> Charles.
>

Yes, well let's not just assume that one has not contributed until you
really check to see if they had.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Cheers

Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Charles-H. Schulz Charles-H. Schulz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regroup and further development of the website(s)

Le Fri, 07 Jan 2011 08:44:17 -0500,
Marc Paré <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Le 2011-01-07 07:17, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
> > Marc,
> >
> > When all is said and done, only contributions will matter. Not
> > rants. No requests for preseances, titles,etc. Sophie hinted that
> > it wasn't about hierarchy, it was about information. That's true. I
> > would add to this: getting the job done. What job have you done?
> >
> > I can't help but noticing you've been writing a whole list of emails
> > trying to prove your points. Such an energy spent in yet another
> > discussion. I'm somewhat disappointed by this attitude, because in
> > the end, it gets us nowhere.
> >
> > So instead of wondering whether you should be the judge of the
> > website before the SC or have some sort of say over this or that,
> > please try to think on how you could genuinely help. Let's not be
> > what the francophones call "un inspecteur des travaux finis"...
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Charles.
> >
>
> Yes, well let's not just assume that one has not contributed until
> you really check to see if they had.
>
> Thanks for the vote of confidence.
>

I'm quite curious indeed, hence my question: What job have you done?

Best,

--
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

marcpare4 marcpare4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regroup and further development of the website(s)

In reply to this post by Christoph Noack
Le 2011-01-07 05:17, Christoph Noack a écrit :

Hi Christoph:

>
> Nevertheless, what I don't understand is, that many of the other
> comments within mails - also by Sophie, or Bernhard, or other long-time
> contributors - are missed or treated differently. And although we do
> need "a breath of fresh air" (a.k.a. community), this support may be as
> valuable as "wiki content". We are happy to share our experience.

I certainly agree with this. On the contrary, people with obvious
experience and talents are respected. This is what brings immense value
to the group. I am happy to see people with experience showing
initiative and giving us a sense of direction (the list of tasks in
preparation for the release of the distros is, again, the perfect
example). If newcomers present ideas that have been tried and failed,
then they should be commended for offering. Participation and exchange
of ideas is a healthy thing and should be encouraged.

>
> [...]
>>> We don't need formal leads, we need people able to act and be
>>> responsible in front of the whole community or the whole project if you
>>> prefer. If somebody claims to be member of the website team, whatever he
>>> prefers to do, he should work on what *has to be done*. It's just a
>>> matter of commitment to the group. You can lead a task one day and not
>>> the other, and it reflects more how an open source project is working.
>
> [...]
>
>> Personally, I would see leads more as in a mentorship role to the teams.
>> If the teams get too way off track, the lead would step in and add words
>> of wisdom as well as play an active role in role modelling. There is no
>> need to vote on any lead, leaders just shine by themselves and promote
>> community growth.
>
> Absolutely! I also prefer the terms "guidance", "support" or
> "mentoring". Although the current situation makes it a bit hard to
> "shine by themselves" - you already stated that many of you are new to
> LibreOffice, and you don't know the experience of other people. It gets
> an "chicken and egg" problem as we can see on some mailing lists :-)
>
> In our LibO/TDF situation, I am fine to (temporarily) highlight a few
> people who are known specialists for certain topics (within our
> community), and are also known to be heavily involved since quite some
> time. Would that be helpful? What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> Christoph
>
>

I don't really think this would be a good idea as this would then become
subjective and contentious. People are probably already shuddering at
the thought of not being mentioned on  such list. Maybe provide the
means for people to check to see how some have contributed: how we go
about seeing how people have contributed; what areas have been
contributed; what areas are in need of contribution. Rather than relying
on one person's assessment of contribution, people could then see by
themselves, in our meritocracy, how people have contributed to the
project. When people have the tool set to work with, they are more
satisfied.

Cheers

Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
marcpare4 marcpare4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regroup and further development of the website(s)

In reply to this post by Charles-H. Schulz
Le 2011-01-07 08:59, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :

Hi Charles

>>> So instead of wondering whether you should be the judge of the
>>> website before the SC or have some sort of say over this or that,
>>> please try to think on how you could genuinely help. Let's not be
>>> what the francophones call "un inspecteur des travaux finis"...
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Charles.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, well let's not just assume that one has not contributed until
>> you really check to see if they had.
>>
>> Thanks for the vote of confidence.
>>
>
> I'm quite curious indeed, hence my question: What job have you done?
>
> Best,
>

Well, I guess if I have to enumerate my contributions, then they are not
that valuable to the project. Cela me fait donc un inspecteur like you say.

I will then go on contributing and hope that my impact on the project
will not be as little as you seem to think.

Best

Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Next » 12