[steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Michael Meeks Michael Meeks
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[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.

--
 [hidden email]  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot


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

Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management

Hi Michael, :-)

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 05:36, Michael Meeks <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

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

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 <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** 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: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management

In reply to this post by davidnelson
Hello David,

Le Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:07:31 +0800,
David Nelson <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Hi Michael, :-)
>
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 05:36, Michael Meeks
> <[hidden email]> 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 do you think?

Best,
Charles.

>
> David Nelson
>



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

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

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

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 <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
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 <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Hi Michael, :-)
>
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 05:36, Michael Meeks
> <[hidden email]> 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 do you think?

Best,
Charles.

>
> David Nelson
>



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

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


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

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

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 [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** 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: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management

Hello David,

See my comments inline.


Le Fri, 7 Jan 2011 23:12:29 +0800,
David Nelson <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> 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.

I would not go for that, but as I and others say, we would like to have
the leadership on the website.

>
> 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?

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.

Best,
Charles.


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

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

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 [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

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

Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management

In reply to this post by davidnelson
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: [hidden email]
Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813
Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: [hidden email]

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

Italo Vignoli
Director - The Document Foundation
Christian Lohmaier (klammer) Christian Lohmaier (klammer)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management

In reply to this post by davidnelson
Hi David, *,

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:12 PM, David Nelson <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

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

Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management

In reply to this post by davidnelson
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 [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Tom Tom
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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 <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
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 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
[hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***



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

Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management

In reply to this post by sophi
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 thinking much better then
I could of.

Thank you

Drew



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Document Foundation Mail Archives
Olivier Hallot Olivier Hallot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management

In reply to this post by davidnelson
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 [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

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

Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management

In reply to this post by Charles-H. Schulz
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
<[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

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

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 <[hidden email]> 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
> <[hidden email]> 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 [hidden email]
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***