Hi Thorsten, all,
Thorsten Wilms schrieb:
Hi!
Originally sent to tdf-discuss, as I thought it would be slightly more
appropriate, but it remains without answer there.
I started a reply there, but didn't manage to finish it (time problem...)
So this is for those who are not subscribed to tdf-discuss:
A proper briefing should be at the root of designing a better logo, no
matter if there will be a contest or not. Actually this is true for any
design or development effort.
It is true for any work:
What is my interest in doing this ?
What are the goals I'm heading to ?
Are there others working on the same direction?
What are the interests of our target groups?
So what is the most minimal core of a missions statement, what is the
essence, the high level goal just a bit more specific than "make the
world a better place"? ;)
Defining a mission statement is crucial - thanks for starting this
discussion. I changed the subject to reflect this importance.
How about:
Mission Statement
=================
Develop an office productivity solution and make it and the project
itself available to and accessible by a majority of humans.
Create and maintain a community of individuals and groups working
collaboratively on different aspects of this development.
It follows:
- Given our modern needs, there needs to be software
- Internationalization
- Free Software
- All major platforms
- Interoperability
- Open, documented interfaces
- Open, documented file formats
- Compatibility with other solutions
- Collaboration
- Meritocracy (there needs to be some hurdle for contributing and
based on ability*effort is best, if you care about the result)
Free Software and open file format (ODF should be mentioned here) are
main topics IMHO - the other describe details of the main goals.
Notes
=====
I would usually encourage defining an audience as narrow as possible,
but it seems the widest possible scope is actually defining for this
project. If not, please step forward with definitions of a narrower
audience.
As our target groups differ very much in their interest and needs, a
broad audience is the right approach. Granularity might be feasible by
extensions and re-bundled applications, but this might not be topic of
the Mission Statement.
The statement is phrased in a way that opens the door for education and
non-software bound approaches.
The word "develop" shall imply optimizing the process and outcome. "Best
possible" or "optimal" would just bloat the statement, as it's clear
that you don't want an just-acceptable solution. However, it's not clear
what optimal or best possible really means in the end.
I started to think this way, but you are right: Even if our goal is to
become the best and most used office suite in the world, it is not
necessary to state this here.
With regards to other ODF office suites this might lead to more
cooperation and less concurrency.
But what is an "office productivity solution" or an "office (software)
suite", actually? How do you define the scope here? How do you include
enough, but not too much?
That mainly depends on our goals:
If we want to broaden the focus of applications / features / files
(calender, music, video, flash etc), the focus shouldn't be too narrow.
On the other hand this would lead to expectations and development effort
that might be better focused on improving the existing specialized
applications inside and outside of LibO - while integration via gateways
and interfaces definitively makes sense.
Best regards
Bernhard
--
E-mail to [email protected] for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/marketing/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
deleted
