HI,
On Wednesday, May 4, 2005, at 3:30 PM GMT +0100, Sophie Gautier wrote: >Hi Louis, all > >Louis Suarez-Potts wrote: > >> Friends, >> >> Earlier this year,[1] we held an emergency meeting whose purpose was >> to clarify the position of the NLC leads regarding changes made to >> OOo and to see about being included as early as possible in the >> process deciding those changes. It was understood by all that as >> Sun largely determines the shape of SO/OOo (OOo being the same >> codebase as SO), that we would have to negotiate with Sun marketing >> directly. > >I'd like to recall here that this request was not only concerning >RFEs, but also existing features that are removed or changed without >any concertation. As a good example of our help and contributions I'd >like to point two of them (no, no this is not the Stylist ;) among >others : >http://graphics.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=631 >http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=48059 related to this >one http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=36372 (the >feedback I had from ministries is very strong here). > yes, of course; thanks for the reminder :-) [snip] > >About RFE's process, I completly agree with Christian's point of view. >The way they are currently handled is a non sense and doesn't give you >any desire to participate to the triage. yes, I agree, too. >> >> So, a couple of proposals. >> >> 1. First, that we re-initiate the discussion of handling community >> input for 3.0. It's too early to set a date for when we should do >> this by, but it makes sense to start thinking of it. >(Why is it too early? >> Because there is no good sense even of what 3.0 will look like.) > >This is not too early because with the 2.0, we are benifiting or will >benefit from a lot of feedback from users having needs that will not >be covered by 2.0 are no longer covered by it, so if the demand is >strong there might be considered for 3.0 or even sooner (my thoughts >go to the graphics module or some Calc functionalities). I think the point was it's too early to set a date not too early to start going through process. The problem is that it is quite unclear at this point, too, what the options really are. > >I'm sorry to insist but we also have a large users base that can >benefit to Sun. For information, I have put a wiki in place that will >be advertized for m100 to track those feedbacks more easily for >external users (not those already in the community and subscribed to >the lists). >http://ooo.lab-project.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Commentaires2.0 Thanks! And this is exactly why I wrote the email and pressed for the meeting. [snip] >> >> The second point is at best a half-way solution. I would prefer #1, >> of course, as it conforms with OSS ideals. But let's be pragmatic. >> What is needed now is for the application in development address the >> needs of major users, and the most major users are, i believe, >> represented by the NLC communities. What #2 provides is a way for >> the many users represented by the NLC to have their voices heard. >> It's not as democratic as #1 above, however, and should not be seen >> as a complete solution; it is a temporary compromise. But I think we >> should consider it. > >imho both are needed to have a clear, understandable and sharing view >of what's going on for OOo. And this can solve some lack of answers >that put us in a very unconfortable position as project leads. Yes. >> >> What to do now? >> >> I'd like for the NLC leads to consider this proposal. For number 1, >> we--the entire project but especially the proddev team--needs to >> devise protocols for managing RFEs, etc., and can discuss those in >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] But, please, read the archives, first. [2] > >But who is the proddev team ? Erwin, Bettina ? who is involved in the >process once we have add the key 'eval_ok' and 'requirements' ? Could >we have a clear and real representation of the process ? Yes. That can be discussed on proddev, I think, along with the substance of Christian's ponts. >Louis, I'm >sure that some of the 3.0 features are already planed (there is some >specs), and I can understand that Sun would keep some of them secret, >but we have no time to waste if we don't find a way to include the >community feedback in this planing. Proddev for me currently is not >the way even if we were hundreds to work on it. So my proposal : - >decisions writen in Christian's previous mail (copy/paste for memo) : >-------< begin of copy >--------------- Sun needs to decide early what >features it wants/considers and which one are unlikely to be >implemented by Sun-developers. +1 [snip] >- a real work on specs coming from NLC (the work :) and shared with >developers, and we have to set a workflow so that each community >doesn't come with a request/analysis already gave by another one. +1 > >- a communication between Sun and NLC, under NDA if needed, when we >ask for features or propose resources (the developer of the feature :) >that could have commercial impact for Sun. As you see this is a mix of >your two points :) :-) +1 > >Kind regards Sophie > Thanks Louis > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
