Hi Louis!
- I think we all agree that avoiding complexity is a good goal.
- Yes, I absolutely accept this. The more complicated a site or program,
the more we have to fight with errors.
But from what point of view should we see complexity?
From the developer of the site or program?
From the contributor?
From the visitor of the site or the user of the program?
I think, we should take care of all the points of view, BUT on different
levels.
The developers have to have enough knowledge to construct a site or
program, which is as simple as it can be used WITHOUT making complex the
work of the other two groups. Because the weight is far more different.
While 1000 or 100000 developer is working on a project with high skills
and enough knowledge to cope with the programming issues, 10 millions of
people are USING the program and visiting the site and MANY of them have
good ideas and are willing to help or take part in the project on
different levels.
So, according to this, I think, the developers with the highest
knowledge have to develop site and program as complex as the users with
the least knowlegde should say: 'It was an easy piece of cake!' Not to
mention the work of the contributors, who take far more time with the
'infrastructure' of AOO.
- But here's another chord to add to the polyphon.
- Yes. AOO is a symphony. This chord adds respect to the developers and
volunteers and makes easier for the users or visitors to contact with
them for any reason, probably without English knowledge. Drum and bass
can be very simple and full of power. But a symphony should impress by
its simplicity AND complexity at the same time. Hard work in the
background, easy listening for the audience.
- What kind of mechanisms do you suppose could be used here, in the
credits, to encourage more substantive engagement? Or even to retain
what's already been committed?
- The more road leads to AOO, the more easier to take part in it, the
more easier to handle things, the more jumps in. The more jumps in, the
more stays.
And, the only thing developers have to do, is to create a list to say
'thankyou' for ideas, patches, contributions, translations. For the
effort and time.
And by this, offering help to others at the same time with this list.
/Of course, I have no idea how many members should be on this list, how
many are willing to be listed or wants this way to be in the 'hall of
fame' and offer help to others./
- The difference, I suppose, made by calling it a game...
- The 'rank thing' may sound like gamifying respect, but I did not meant
it this way.
I suggested it, because
1. I found committership as a criterion too high /I may though of a
different list like Aivaras or you (it happens offen :) )
2. I don't even know my 'rank' /never applied a patch, no committership,
just 'high flying ideas' :) /
- ...localised MLs work fine as long as they are actually populated with
posts and as long as those posting do not effectively wall themselves
off simply by focusing on their lists...
- I have to admit, I did not even think of this kind of danger which
really seems to be real with forking at the end.
But as all things, it has two sides too.
While it helps a lots of outsiders, English non-speakers to join,
discuss or ask, it risks the 'singularity'.
But if AOO has more 'strong legs' in many different languages, it could
'stand ground' more effectively for more time too.
Complexity-simplycity: a few days ago I accidently noticed, that
someone - Rob - has made a change to test-hu.
He updated the number of download from 100 million to 125 million. And
as I saw, he had to update it everywhere.
And Aivaras corrected a list ordering as he wrote in his latest mail:
"Math, Base ... changed to: ... Base, Math"
And this changes should be followed on the other subsites too.
What is complex?
To build a site with more work and we can change this values with just
'one click'?
Or to build a simple site and copy this 'one click' work many times, always.
So what is simple?
To list or not to list? :)
Sorry for this long monolog and thanks for reading.
Regards,
csaba
On 2015-01-24 15:29, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
On 24 Jan 2015, at 06:09, YoheY - OpenOffice <[email protected]> wrote:
My first concern with your sketch is the degree of complexity. I just have to
think more about it.
It just seems to be complex. One list contains everything. The environment
decide which records to show up from it.
My second concern is the criterion for being considered a contributor and thus
eligible for inclusion in the list. I'd say committership is a good criterion,
or is it too strict?
I guess if this kind of list would be used, some kind of rank could express the
level or weight of contribution. /patcher, developer, tester, committer, have
good ideas, etc./
I think we all agree that avoiding complexity is a good goal. But here's another chord to
add to the polyphon. What kind of mechanisms do you suppose could be used here, in the
credits, to encourage more substantive engagement? Or even to retain what's already been
committed? For instance, local meet ups might work, as could the integration with a
social media site. "Integration" here does not mean, necessarily, anything more
than just cross linking. :-)
Basically, my desire is to recognise contributions & contributors and then to encourage
more and more of the kind. Many tactics can work and do work; it depends on person, context,
even code. One can even gamify (eg, use a layered approach, where the "reward" is
stepping up the meritocratic ladder—which is what is done, anyway, only without the title.
The difference, I suppose, made by calling it a game would lie in the setting of
goals—without, at the same time, sacrificing the real logic of open source, which is that
trust and public respect are earned through contributions, especially those others
appreciate—by using them.)
cheers,
louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
