[tdf-discuss] Re: TDF/LO on a wrong way?
Le 2010-12-15 07:37, Johannes A. Bodwing a écrit : Hi Marc, here just the first point. The more I try to understand TDF/LO I understand it less. What I think to know about it at the moment is: ~ TDF has a mission. In short: to build better conditions for a community, like it is said on the TDF-Website. The purpose is not mentioned there. But it is the Office-Suite LO as a sequel to the OOo-Office-Suite in a freer frame. (OK, some time it was thought it could be OOo again). ~ That means TDF has no (clear) mission at the moment for LO. But the core of the TDF-Community is the Office-Suite LO. And TDF is founded for building and progress of LO. ~ TDF offers the final LO in the next few weeks (I think) without a mission/vision or goals for LO? And after the final release of LO 3.3 we think about the goals etc. of LO? ~ That means on the basis of the TDF-mission TDF is working for a community not for LO - and LO has no goals but comes soon? But who makes LO if not TDF? Is this the way to success for such a project? Why is the reason for TDF not mentionend in the mission like: ... With this we improve the conditions for our Office Suite LibreOffice ... and so on. Is this a mistake, a slip of the pen? Or is there a concrete reason why the Office-Suite isn't mentioned in the mission of TDF? a little bit confused, Johannes Yes, a little confusing but with all of the work going into the first release and building a website ... there are just too many things to do. It will get better organised as we put everything together. We just need to be patient while these things get ironed out and participate when our talents are requested. Marc -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: TDF/LO on a wrong way?
Hi Marc, here just the first point. ... Le 2010-12-14 07:52, Johannes A. Bodwing a écrit : Sorry people, ... I fear we will loose our goals short after beginning. OK, that's hard. But look at OOo and its goals and what is realized after ten years. We will work on the goals, mission, values etc. of the LO soon. This is an item that has been discussed on the marketing list. These will not necessarily be the same as the TDF. I think that most members recognise that the TDF and LO will need to be represented on different sites. The more I try to understand TDF/LO I understand it less. What I think to know about it at the moment is: ~ TDF has a mission. In short: to build better conditions for a community, like it is said on the TDF-Website. The purpose is not mentioned there. But it is the Office-Suite LO as a sequel to the OOo-Office-Suite in a freer frame. (OK, some time it was thought it could be OOo again). ~ That means TDF has no (clear) mission at the moment for LO. But the core of the TDF-Community is the Office-Suite LO. And TDF is founded for building and progress of LO. ~ TDF offers the final LO in the next few weeks (I think) without a mission/vision or goals for LO? And after the final release of LO 3.3 we think about the goals etc. of LO? ~ That means on the basis of the TDF-mission TDF is working for a community not for LO - and LO has no goals but comes soon? But who makes LO if not TDF? Is this the way to success for such a project? Why is the reason for TDF not mentionend in the mission like: ... With this we improve the conditions for our Office Suite LibreOffice ... and so on. Is this a mistake, a slip of the pen? Or is there a concrete reason why the Office-Suite isn't mentioned in the mission of TDF? a little bit confused, Johannes -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: TDF/LO on a wrong way?
Hi Johannes, Le 14/12/10 13:52, Johannes A. Bodwing a écrit : Interesting comments and very praiseworthy intentions, but ... So many things are done different in many goups. That costs energy and time and at least motivation. But there are many things that could be done together. Like a common Home-Site or the exchange of articles for LO-Magazins and so on. Perhaps the reasons why this is so are deeply seated in each group's national and cultural identity Where is the common and worldwide frame for the TDF/LO-Project? And where is the structure and organization to find (website?)? Or - how can we build it together? I feel that the more appropriate question should be : where is the Foundation, and what are its values ? As yet, and to my knowledge, the Foundation still has no legal identity, without firm governance. As has been shown on various discussion lists, this has lead to rather a large amount of e-mail exchange without any real possibility to decide and execute concrete actions by the members of the Community at large. If you want to federate everyone under a single hat, then the hat has to actually physically exist in the first place, and someone has to be wearing it. As an example, take the case for the web site development platform. Not only are there still questions as to which website platform we are going to be using, but also we have a fledlging website which, as you rightly say, is a hotchpotch of individual contributions by each of the NL groups. People are not going to sit still and twiddle their thumbs whilst waiting for the pseudo-main site to come online, so naturally have gone about doing their own thing within their own groups. That is not IMHO necessarily a bad thing : most NL group members know what works and what doesn't for their target group, yet by the same token, this leads to an overall impression for the whole of the project as being somewhat disparate and incoherent, especially given the lack of an official centralising power. Again, that might not necessarily be a bad thing with regard to certain audience targets, but IMHO it will affect the opinion of the corporate sector. Corporations don't like external mess when they address an outside project, they have enough of their own to deal with internally, without wishing to bother with why, for a given product, the corresponding website looks different in English to that in Spanish, German, French or Chinese, say. That can be particularly unsettling. On the other hand, informal users are probably quite happy that they can go to their own language part of the site and find things presented in way they understand or can relate to. It all boils down to your target audience. Target companies, and you need coherency, consistency and reliability, both in operation and appearance. Don't get me wrong here, you can still tailor content to individual cultures even in this case, but it has to conform to the corporate way of looking at things. Target individuals, you can tailor your content and organisational structure and operations to please that group of individuals. One way or the other, a decision will have to be made. If such a decision has been made, I can not yet see it filtering down through the bazaar. I don't need a cathedral, but a roof over my head would be nice ;-) Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: TDF/LO on a wrong way?
Hi Alexander: Le 2010-12-14 11:04, Alexander Thurgood a écrit : The German group is debating at the moment as to the appropriateness of even making their site live if the English site is still considered under development, incomplete or dare I say it too verbose. As far as I know, the French group is ready to go. I have no idea about the others, as I'm not subscribed to any of the other language specific groups. This is what I mean by lack of a centralized body making decisions. We could all just hang around for another 3 months, or actually put the sites up. Who ultimately makes those decisions ? Does it really matter anyway, so long as we are providing our respective communities with relevant information ? I am sure that once David has completed the bulk of the uploading of the content on the Silverstripe, he will consider input from members who would like to offer comments on the site. He is doing an incredible job at constructing the site in such a quick week after the site had remained empty for so long. There are a few other members who had offered help but due to different circumstances could not do so as much as hoped at the time. It looks like the English site will be ready to go in a matter of very few days and at this point I am sure if David needs any other help that it will be easier for members to fill in the smaller documentation needs than that of the whole site. I certainly can't speak for the SC on those questions, or the governing board as and when it manages to materialise. My point is that people doubted what had been decided with regard to what was supposed to be happening and that this doubt is the result of a lack of clearly transcribed decision making, or alternatively a lack of sufficient communication towards those members of the community who are volunteering to do the work. Yes, people can read the transcripts of the conference calls, but what they need are easily accessible header points clearly stating where we are going, how we are going to achieve it, and the estimated time frame for doing so. I don't mean just with regard to the website, I mean with regard to the project as a whole. If you look at the documentation, you will see we are in a similar quandry / state of flux with regard to how we are getting organised, which workflow we will be using and which tools are adapted to that task. In my experience, Direction doesn't just occur through Brownian motion, it is given by leadership in some shape or form (not that I wish to be the leader by any means). It is the general overall fuzziness at the moment which leaves me somewhat perplexed, and I can't see this being resolved until a legal entity is in place that will have some form of system to channel people's ardours and optimise and harness their willingness to contribute to the project. Just my 2c. Alex Then, IMO, the Drupal devs should have people trying out and testing the completed modules and getting it ready for content. Once tested, it would stand to reason that content could be put up on the Drupal site in anticipation of a full roll out of the site. I cannot see a problem with the static pages being prepared on the site. Maybe Michael, our Drupal lead dev. could chime in here and list the pages/modules that could be tested and from there a plan to upload content would be worked out. Here is the wiki page where are listed the modules and their present status: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Website/Drupal_Modules. I know that the site's theme is still being worked on. Once this is done, it will be quicker and more pleasant to shape the site along with some content. I, for one, encourage people to sign up to work on the Drupal site. If there are any language concerns, these can be overcome somehow. IMO, I would be happier if we had more representation from different language-group dev's familiar with Drupal joining in and helping out. Some groups are quite under-represented or not represented at all on the Drupal team. I am sure there are other Drupal devs on the language groups who could also join in. This would make for a richer community driven site. It may just be that at this point, we should have Michael offer a quick summary of Drupal site's progress, what needs testing, and if content can already be prepared for some pages. Cheers Marc Drupal Web Dev. Team Member -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: TDF/LO on a wrong way?
Le 2010-12-14 07:52, Johannes A. Bodwing a écrit : Sorry people, I think we are on a wrong way. Why? OK, there is hard work on every side, but what is the core of all? And how do we realize this core around the world with a structure for a long, long time? For example, look at HOME on the website. There you find: LibreOffice - Welcome to LibreOffice and so on. The german site is familiar. But LO is just a manifestation of the idea of TDF. And the idea/goals of TDF are: Our mission is to facilitate the evolution of the OpenOffice.org Community into a new open, independent, and meritocratic organizational structure within the next few months. That means: The core is the Community, its structure and its evolution e.g. And LO is the product that comes from this structur and that helps to improve the structure of this Community. Like a crystal nucleus. Why can TDF and LO than go to public in this splitted way they do? TDF and LO are one thing that can't be splitted without loosing the basis. For example: Why not on every HOME-Site in every nation (and in every article, spot e.g.) start with the spirit oft TDF/LO?: The Document Foundation presents the new Freedom of Community-based Software LibreOffice The spirit of this Community is the fuel. This spirit provides the worldwide frame for everything TDF does. With this spirit LO is created and will be developed and so on. And for that the Community has to work together as a whole. I fear we will loose our goals short after beginning. OK, that's hard. But look at OOo and its goals and what is realized after ten years. We will work on the goals, mission, values etc. of the LO soon. This is an item that has been discussed on the marketing list. These will not necessarily be the same as the TDF. I think that most members recognise that the TDF and LO will need to be represented on different sites. Or look at the idea of a LO-Magazin. It's a thread on the international marketing-list and one on the german list. How many LO-magazins are starting, and in the end everyone of it is like every national group will make it. Everyone different and perhaps without the core of all - the goals of TDF. Claudio F. Filho from BrOffice has kindly offered to help out with with LO Magazines as they have the process quite fine tuned. I am not sure if the German group would consider cooperating with BrOffice this way. In his post, Claudio mentions that they already publish in Galician, French, Portuguese (BR), Spanish, and English. It may be a good idea to partner up with BrOffice and streamline a process for a German magazine. I believe that the general process is that, for major articles, all of the partnered magazines publish these articles, but, regional and language specific articles are published as well. (Although, I would imagine that some of these language-specific articles would still be quite interesting for the all partners anyway.) You can find the thread here: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentation.libreoffice.marketing/1454 This to me sounds like an interesting partneship to consider as I believe that some of the German members were also concerned about the amount of material available for a magazine. I have tried to follow the German magazine thread on the German list as best as I could with my rudimentary German skills (and translator of course). In my opinion, it would be interesting for the TDF/LO to consider BrOffice coordinate magazines (with membership approval of course) for LibreOffice and for different language groups. This way we could have a unified look and feel for the LO magazine and the content could still be appropriate for each language group magazine. Some of the articles may apply best to only one language group than another. This way the magazine publishing process would be the same for all, deadlines could be coordinated and we could even perhaps encourage magazines for smaller groups by helping them out with the process and letting them take care of the content. Regards, Johannes Sorry for the long post. Cheers Marc -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
