Il 18/05/2012 16:55, drew jensen ha scritto:
Hi,
Recently there has been some discussion on the projects private ML
regarding issues about native language groups and how best to support
work groups which will by definition be somewhat circumscribed from the
whole by virtue of language without losing the cohesion of a single
project focus.
I invite others pick that up here:
Reading to all other messages in this thread, I think many missed the point.
The problem is not about what language to use, but how to manage the
to-be-volunteers which don't or wouldn't have the same skills as ours.
Volunteers are a big marketing weapon; is like happy workers that freely
advertise the company they work for. OTOH rejected volunteers (even for
difficulty of access - e.g. language) will feel the final product less
theirs, so they will be less willing to marketing that.
Like many "opposers" of AOO Project (incubating) (get it? ;-) say, the
Apache Software Foundation has a long history of successful software for
skilled technical users. I bet that the average OpenOffice user don't
even know what a programming language exactly is, so I think this is a
new exciting challenge for the Apache folks.
What I understood in my experience with italian volunteers is that
people love to contribute in a hassle-free maneer, this means that
someone else have to show them the way, letting them just do. I know
this may sound disappointing, but it is not a limit of freedom if
someone choose by his/her own to follow some rules.
I think that it would be useful to write some basic guidelines for the
native language teams to know what to do and what not. Letting them know
it would eventually lead to the birth of local communities, where
"basic" contributors will eventually will go there.
Maybe many of us have still in mind the old OpenOffice.org structure,
which worked fine for the language teams and to which we can consider
copying from.
Paolo
