Scott Carr wrote:
[...]
If you have a problem working on OOoAuthors, then stop
working on that side. I didn't realize it was still a
big problem, or I wouldn't have suggested it in the first
place.
The last I heard, you said it was working ok, and that it
could be handled. This is volunteer work, unless
absolutely needed, I would never suggest doing something
you didn't want to do. Before getting to a level of
frustration, please email the list or me directly, and
let us/me know what problems you are facing. I want to
help keep you as productive as possible.
All was and is working ok on OOoAuthors. I do the work,
because I am behind your theory that we will confuse the OOo
user if we have several sets of FAQs. I also see that there
are folks that care about their edits at OOoAuthors making
it to the OpenOffice.org project. Actually, there are more
users there at OOoAuthors than here at the Documentation
project, who care about FAQs. So, while I'm not so fond of
the work, I do it in the spirit of collaboration. We all
should, leaders included, as that is the promise we made to
the audience when we first started the adventure.
I'd like to see us on the same page. If we aren't all on the
same page, that's ok too, but it would be most encouraging
to not receive comments from a lead person that treat me
like I'm a traitor for attempting to bridge the work, to
make it happen, as we all promised it would happen. Also, it
makes it very hard to have one person making changes only on
the doc faqs, but not the others simultaneously. It means
that, in order to keep the sets somewhat parallel, all work
at the documentation project must be monitored and addressed
to complete the tasks. This is the reason I monitor the faq
changes in the first place.
What I think I am hearing is that I must perform all the
unaddressed portions myself, instead of bringing them up on
the issue reports or in the mail lists, because when I
do bring up something that shows that FAQ work that has
occurred is not in line with what does exists, in either
project, I'm told to do it myself if I want control. This
feels discouraging. I should be able to address the issues
on issue reports, and leave the tasks open for anyone to
pick up and perform. If I leave tasks open, I'm told that is
not sensible. So, how to better address the issues that come
up as we try to keep all faqs in parallel form, for our
customer, without leaving them unadressed or on my shoulders?
I do not want control of the work, but I do work toward the
organization. Does my organizational work really scare folks
away? Should we not care about the organization? Am I really
so out of line to make such requests. None of them are made
to be derogatory. All of them are made because it seems
sensible. I always raise my questions as questions. I ask
the audience to teach me how to better serve you.
This work is where I purposefully step out of my own desires
to honor all of those involved, and the majority. I don't
appreciate being lashed for it, which is one issue I hope is
addressed with this part of the discussion. I also don't
like seeing others lashed for their OOoAuthors work, as the
work there has been a huge contribution to the overall
repository, whether we like it or not.
Sincerely,
Diane Mackay
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
