Tom We have a liaison list since the beginning, it's the projects@ list. We had it since the beginning.
Best, Charles. Tom Davies <tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk> a écrit : >Hi :) >I like the idea of "Volunteer Coordinator" but prefer a change of >emphasis to "Community Development" to pro-actively recruit new people >to various teams and prioritising teams that are most in need of new >people. That would include raising the profile of the various teams >both within the project as a whole (particularly on the user support >type places such a Ask and the Users List (and the forums)) but also >perhaps outside of TDF and LO. > > >Specific teams such as Accessibility and Base really need a LOT more >people or a lot more coordination between those that are working on >it. Docs Team always needs more people of course but is already a LOT >better off than Accessibility. > > >Ideally each team would have at least 1 or 2 people on each other list >and on Ask and in the new Forum in order to help feedback when relevant >issues arise. Since some other lists are extremely high traffic it >might well need different people to liaise with different lists. > >So far the team that seems best at liaising is the docs team. > >Regards from >Tom :) > > > > > >----- Forwarded Message ----- >>From: Robinson Tryon <bishop.robin...@gmail.com> >>To: Marc Paré <m...@marcpare.com> >>Cc: >>Robinson Tryon <bishop.robin...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, 12 February >2013, 3:43 >>Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Questions galore! >> >>On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Marc Paré <m...@marcpare.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> When I first went to the odfauthors.org site, I thought that it was >a >>>> site for end-users because of the highly-prominent links to books >for >>>> sale, but now I believe that the website is largely focused on >>>> internal production. Perhaps there's something we can do to make >>>> things more clear to regular users as well as to our volunteer >>>> community. >>> >>> >>> ODFAuthors have been partners with OOo and in particular with >LibreOffice >>> from the very start. >> >>cool. >> >>> Jean Hollis Weber of ODFAuthors is one of our most >>> prolific contributors on the project, we also make use of ODFAuthor >>> resources and goodwill. I believe it is we who should be thankful >for >>> ODFAuthors helping us out with the docs teams and resources. I doubt >things >>> would go as smoothly without Jean and her team at ODFAuthors who >work at >>> quite high professional standards. >> >>Yes, I'd previously run across the "Taming LibreOffice" website, but >>didn't put the pieces together until just recently that she was the >>head of the Documentation Team :-) >> >>> As far as I can remember, all that same information is already up on >the Ask >>> site. You just have to find it. No need to go to Archive.org. >> >>ok, cool. >> >>>>> IMO, most questions users ask on the Ask.LibreOffice.org site are >>>>> probably >>>>> best answered there, and, IMO, I don't see a reason to work on any >>>>> user-related FAQ when the Ask.LibreOffice.org site is probably the >best >>>>> type >>>>> of solution for a good living/breathing FAQ site. >>>> >>>> >>>> Using the Ask site as the general FAQ as we go forward sounds like >a >>>> solid plan to me. The FAQ on the wiki currently has some overlap >with >>>> the Ask site: > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Faq >>>> >>>> What do you guys think about migrating questions from that FAQ to >the >>>> Ask site? I'd be happy to shepherd that work, if that's amenable to >>>> you. >>> >>> >>> I don't think this would be an acceptable option as the FAQ is, >again, used >>> in large part for contributor work. >> >>Ah, okay. Most of the questions on the FAQ on the wiki seem to relate >>more to *use* of LibreOffice than being a *contributor* to the >>project. The contributor-specific content I see on that page is a link >>to the "List of Frequently Asked Questions for Development". >> >>These types of questions/categories seem like they're more suited to a >>user-targeted FAQ: >> >>- "Spell-checking doesn't work !" >>- "What are the system requirements for LibreOffice? " >>- "How do I change the email client used by LibreOffice? " >> >>> IMO, there is nothing wrong with >>> overlapping/doubling or information as people tend to operate in >different >>> ways; some like to get information from FAQ's, others from Ask >sites, others >>> from mailing lists, others from forums ... IMO, it is up to the site >>> maintainers to triage the information appropriately so that it is >factual >>> (as best as one can get) for their own particular user base. To me, >it >>> doesn't sound like a good idea to remove a contributor tool for >users when >>> we are in need of contributors. >> >>I think doubling could be okay if we had enough manpower to maintain >>all of our web properties. As you mention, we are in need of >>contributors, and every additional copy of documentation or >>information requires additional personnel to keep it fresh and up to >>date. >> >>To wit, some of the entries in the wiki FAQ are merely pointers to >>other pages (e.g. the System Requirements) and seem unlikely to >>change. However there are other pages, such as the information about >>supported file formats, or information about the user profile, that >>may need more frequent updates: >>https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Faq/General/012 >>https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Faq/General/110 (redirects to >>https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/UserProfile) >>Also see https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/UserProfile >> >>I believe that since 3.6, LO has dropped support for export in some >>StarOffice file formats, and I believe that the user profile for LO4 >>is stored under .config/libreoffice/4/, but we haven't had a chance to >>update that information yet. >> >>The Ask site is mostly reactive, rather than proactive, so while we do >>have updated info about the StarOffice formats: >>http://ask.libreoffice.org/en/question/1839/i-have-some-old-star-office-writer-files-extension/ >> >>...we don't have up to date information about the User Profiles: >>http://ask.libreoffice.org/en/question/5899/user-profile/ >>http://ask.libreoffice.org/en/question/903/where-are-the-libreoffice-data-profile-files/ >>http://ask.libreoffice.org/en/question/4628/how-to-reset-user-profile-on-mac-osx-108-mountain/ >> >>The Ask site contributors seem to be basing their information on >>what's on the wiki, so perhaps we should put a stronger emphasis on >>keeping the information on the wiki up to date. I know that's a really >>big task, but it's definitely worth some thought. >> >>>> - When answering a Q, there should be a clear/easy way to ask the >Doc >>>> Team where to find the latest documentation on a particular topic >>>> >>>> - If "How do I do X?" comes up and we don't have (can't find?) >good >>>> docs on it, there should be an easy way to ping the Doc team about >the >>>> need [File as an enhancement bug?] >>>> >>>> - The text of really good Answers should be fed back to the Doc >team >>>> for inclusion in the next iteration of the documentation [Not sure >if >>>> this should be a pull or a push action] >>> >>> This sounds more like a business model/plan where the people who >work on the >>> project are considered employees and not volunteers. While this >sounds like >>> an ideal plan, I would venture to guess that an organizational >scheme of >>> this magnitude would not work. This would set up too many >regulations rather >>> than opportunities to contribute. >> >>I'm not sure that my suggestions would introduce "regulations," but I >>do agree with your general assessment. In particular, I believe that >>what I'm describing is a more integrated workflow, and such a workflow >>is difficult without a commitment from the senior members of each team >>to make sure that incoming requests are dealt with promptly. It's >>difficult to get that kind of a commitment from an all-volunteer team! >> >>> We are built on a meritocratic philosophy >>> which is why we have seen so much growth in our dev section -- this >is what >>> is so attractive to our contributors. Unfortunately, our other >contributor >>> branches have not been able to keep up to the pace. It is all up to >us to >>> trumpet the values of our project and try to attract contributor in >our >>> branches. >> >>A little friendly competition for volunteer talent :-) So there's no >>unified approach to attracting new talent, like a Volunteer >>Coordinator? It would be neat to have some coordination on how we >>could suggest people to participate. I know we have the page about >>getting involved (https://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/), but >>someone to help with proactive recruitment might not be a bad idea. >> >>> IMO, the quickest fix for the problem at hand is still the >rationalization >>> of the Ask site, culling the question/answers that are on the >database at >>> the present time ... I know it is a big job ... but regardless of >any fix, >>> you will still have to do this. >> >>I think one of the strengths of the Ask site is the ability for users >>to see a variety of questions and answers. We could consider >>"curating" the site more, but that would require more users to step up >>into positions of greater power and responsibility, and require some >>tough calls because we can't easily combine information from two >>questions into a single question. Closing questions is reversible (and >>those questions are still searchable), but I'm much more cautious >>about deleting content. In any case, any culling of the answers will >>need to wait a bit until we've dealt with our backlog. >> >>> It also sounds like the Ask site should try >>> to involve more contributors on their site to help with responses to >user >>> questions, have you tried to grow your contributor base by inviting >regular >>> competent participants to join your ranks? >> >>Yes, I've definitely asked some people to join us. I've also lost a >>couple of key contributors. One of the issues is that the Ask site >>doesn't have a unified mailing list, IRC channel, or forum for us to >>cultivate a community. Our only interaction is through Questions, >>Answers, and Comments (which can lead to some interesting situations, >>like using comments on an Answer as a poor-man's forum thread :-) >> >>> IMO, the fact that there are different contributor FAQ's are fine, >the user >>> FAQ is supposed to the the Ask site. >> >>(not sure what you were intending to say here) >> >>> And yes, unfortunately, there may be >>> some overlapping, but the quality of answers on the site still >remains the >>> responsibility of the people behind the Ask site. >> >>If, when you say "the people behind the Ask site" you mean the >>mods/admins, I'm not sure I agree. The quality of the answers on the >>Ask site comes from how vibrant a community we create, and how >>involved our senior, knowledgeable members become. The people behind >>the Ask site -- the mods, admins, etc -- are already kept busy by a >>lot of 'housekeeping' tasks, and some of the key members also try to >>make sure that every question gets at least a cursory answer. I think >>we all strive for quality, but don't always have time to give each >>question the care and research that it deserves. >> >>To compare with a similar situation, would you say that the >>Documentation Team is currently responsible for the quality of the >>documentation on the wiki? >> >>> Note that I am not annoyed with your questions nor with your >suggestions. >>> But, it looks to me that you are looking for answers to the problems >on the >>> Ask site in the wrong places. Once the Ask site is cleaned up, you >may find >>> that most of the problems will have lessened. >>> >>> But, as we are following meritocratic philosophical values on the >project, >>> there is nothing to stop you from organizing such a structure as you >>> describe, and, perhaps it may be adopted by the rest of us. Put in >writing >>> on a wiki for people to read and if you find enough contributors to >run it, >>> then we may all follow. It may work! >> >>Fair enough. I believe that better coordination between the >>Documentation Team and the members of the Ask site could be very >>helpful to the user-support process, and I'll do what I can to help >>keep the lines of communication open. Putting proposals up on the wiki >>sounds like a good step once I've had a bit more experience >>interacting with the different teams and can formulate more complete >>solutions. For now, I'll join as many lists as I can handle, fix bits >>and pieces here and there, and learn a bit more about how the various >>parts of LO operate :-) >> >> >>Cheers, >>--R >> >>-- >>Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to >documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org >>Problems? >http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >>Posting guidelines + more: >http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >>List archive: >http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ >>All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be >deleted >> >> >> >> >-- >Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to >documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org >Problems? >http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >Posting guidelines + more: >http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ >All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be >deleted -- Envoyé de mon téléphone avec Kaiten Mail. Excusez la brièveté. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
