On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Grzegorz Rajda <melloned...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip> > 3 master groups is enough to create efficiently best office software. > We can easy visual this as flow and apply on creating new structure. > I think a "flat" project structure like that may be a good idea. But I think that for now it is good to have everyone on one big mailing list. Why? Because we have a lot of people who are new to Apache and are new to each other. We're learning how Apache works and how the infrastructure works. We're learning how to make decisions at Apache, how to vote, how to edit the website and things like that. Many of the same questions are coming up, repeated by different people. Having us all in one group helps us all learn together, like one class of students. But once this Apache "boot camp" is done, I think we can then talk about forming additional lists and specializing. This might take another two or three weeks. That's my opinion. One thing that could be a good sign that we are ready is when we can show that *all* project committers and PPMC members are: 1) Able to retrieve, modify and commit a file in Subversion 2) Able to modify website pages and publish the changes using the CMS 3) Able to modify the two wikis. 4) Subscribed to the ooo-dev list and PPMC private list. I think we need that basic skill level for all committers before we can start on specialized tasks. > I have question for everybody: What we have accomplish? > The Apache project was just created a little over a week ago. We've been doing a lot of "socializing" of ideas and getting the infrastructure set up. And learning a lot about how Apache works. > At the moment we have only this: > http://www.chip.pl/images/logotypy/tumblr_kvgfz0ehyf1qacd5ko1_500.jpg/image_mini > http://lwn.net/Articles/446093/ > The press likes conflict. They cannot write a story about "Today there was peace and understanding in the world" Who would want to read that? > That's isn't enough... > It is not enough, I agree. So how would you like to help? Regards, -Rob > 2011/6/22 Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>: >> >> On Jun 22, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Grzegorz Rajda <melloned...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Good evening, >>>> >>>> All write this to other mailing-list as response to mail from Key Schenk. I >>>> wan't discus this with You and back to OOo development. What You think >>>> about >>>> that? >>>> >>>> Last changes in infrastructure (Oracle, LibreOffice etc.) needs from us new >>>> goals to create reborn release of OOo. I have some ideas and proposals. >>>> >>>> 1. Easy structure: >>>> - one page in native languages (auto-detect language, use right strings) >>>> - one repository for code (if somebody can commit, they can do something >>>> for >>>> whole source code, one method, without individual keys) >>>> - one bug-tracker for any language with bugs merging (developers who know >>>> english and navive lang should merge bug reports.) >>>> - one code, one standard, one development guide for everyone. (should have >>>> specification of interface planing/create and programming) >>>> >>> >>> "Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler", as Einstein said. >>> >>> There is a natural tendency toward fragmentation and wall-building. >>> Coordination has a cost and it is very easy to break into small >>> groups, by language, as well as by function groups (QA, marketing, >>> etc.) and to further subdivide by sub-functionary areas. That is how >>> bureaucracies form. "I am the chief assistant secretary to the >>> assistant chief director". It is also how specialists find a >>> specialty. "I am a ear doctor, but I specialize in left ears only". >>> >>> So there are danger of having too many groups. It narrows the our >>> focus, I think. >>> >>> On the other hand, we probably cannot put 200 active people into a >>> single mailing list. >>> >>> So I'd propose that we answer the question: What is the *least* >>> amount of project structure necessary for us to succeed? We can >>> always add more structure and more layers later. But once we've built >>> community walls, it is hard to later tear them down. >> >> I propose that we use ooo-dev - there are some good long running threads >> going. >> >> Until we start seeing how the native language projects go, then we can >> evaluate the true need and available support for additional mailing lists. >> >> I think the "Commit then Review" committer/PPMC member peer group vs. the >> "Review then Commit" developers with and without ICLA is a big distinction. >> >> We've been overusing ooo-private (because there is a lot to establish and >> learn) we need to stop and make sure that we are all one community on one >> list. It's going to be chaotic, but a new order will form. >> >> Individuals now have the option of using the Community Wiki to put together >> ideas and then come here and discuss these and refine them. I've got some >> about PDF workflow, but I am waiting for awhile ... >> >> Regards, >> Dave >> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> -Rob >>> >>>> Result: >>>> - openoffice.org - in native language direct >>>> - openoffice.org - easy to use one support (language automatic) >>>> - openoffice.org - have only required and optional files in source code >>>> repository >>>> - openoffice.org - have easy to contribute web interface (for example for >>>> translating [web, help, etc.]) >>>> - openoffice.org - easy to programmers contribution, >>>> - openoffice.org - is best than MS Office in all releases! >>>> >>>> 2. In future: >>>> - every day we have new developers >>>> - every day we have more optimized algorithms >>>> - every day we have best closed standards reverse engineering >>>> - every day we have more happy users >>>> - every day we win in all categories with our competition! >>>> >>>> We can do it together! How You think? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best regards, >>>> Grzegorz alias Mellonedain >>>> >> >> > > > > -- > Pozdrawiam, > Grzegorz >
