Hi Jan,

Jan Iversen wrote on 14-10-16 19:53:

> Following our good discussion in the last ESC meeting, we have another
> example of how to demotivate a new contributor.

I share your concerns about how this all must be properly communicated.
Apart from that:

> When a easyhack no longer has “needsDevEval” and “needsUIEval” is should

this specific issue has not been discussed by UX, didn't have
needsUIEval and I commented on the problem within three weeks of the
commit, because I stumbled over the problem in a daily build. Now it is
three months after my first comment, and I asked for response
repeatedly.. and it today that it's been discussed in the UX team.
(Where it also was announced last week IIRC..)
We know problems caused by unpolished but committed hacks that affected
(..s) users for years. So I want to express my concern on that side of
the situation too.
And IMO it's not optimal that there was no response (in the issue or
direct) on the noticed problem.

> make a new easyhack, describing how the current status can be
> enhanced/changed.

In general I say yes, when it's a glitch.

> That way we do not tell a new contributor his/hers work is rubbish
> (another less polite word for “revert”). Please remember the contributor

So that could have been done earlier.

> Sorry for a frank mail on a friday afternoon, but this is slowly
> becoming a bigger problem. We have enough problems helping new
> contributors become skilled LO developers, there are absolutely no need
> to create more problems.

I hope my view on the situation does help a bit in our mutual effort :)

Ciao - Cor

Cor Nouws
GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28  A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6
- vrijwilliger http://nl.libreoffice.org
- volunteer http://www.libreoffice.org
- The Document Foundation Membership Committee Member
LibreOffice mailing list

Reply via email to