Re: [steering-discuss] Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi, sorry for stepping in so late -- was on vacation until January 10th and then instantly went ill, finally back to reading through e-mail backlog. IMHO, the raised questions in this thread have been answered during yesterday's SC call (minutes and recording will be online soon). If there are open questions to me directly, just ping me, then I have missed them. :-) Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi David, *, On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:33 AM, David Nelson comme...@traduction.biz wrote: I'd like to suggest that there should be an editing team officially appointed: An editing team is a good idea, however - one *English NL* executive editor (with publishing/admin powers), one is not enough, as one might be ill/on vacation, etc. Also it doesn't quite fit in the community idea - Charles Schulz, Florian Effenberger and Italo Vignoli as managing editors (with publishing/admin powers). I'd rather have more of managing editors - not sure whether there needs to be a dedicate executive editor position, but rather a couple of managing editors But same as above, the list is too short, esp. as those people are heavily involved in other areas. To kick-start it, it might be enough, but it should quickly be expanded to include other people who have contributed in a reasonable fashion/have proven that they are capable of the task. - one person from Design, Christoph Noack, with author powers, to consult with about buttons and images. I don't otherwise see the Design team playing much of a role in the running of the website, beyond ensuring compliance with the graphic charter (which is principally imposed by the theme). -1 Especially in terms of design, artworkt, etc. you cannot have enough contributors. Having one peer contact: Yes, this is desireable (i.e. one who forwards the requests of the website team and reports back the results of the design team). As it is hard enough to get artwork to put up on the site, you shouldn't artificially limit the amount of possible contributors by only having one person with powers. - one or two technical administrators: Christian Lohmaier and Erich Christian (with admin powers). My suggestion would be that they do limit themselves to *technical* administration alone, without any interest in the content side (this is what they currently do with the other NL sites). This should be no problem, as at least we two have other areas to work with as well :-) However I surely have an interest in the content part, since the content in the end determines what features to add to the site, etc. Focus surely is on the technical part. - one contributors team, principally of English NL speakers (each member with author powers). Yes, success or failure all depends on the contributors. IMHO, if you organize things like this, you will have a tool that is efficiently run and that will provide TDF with the most-effective marketing platform. If you allow the site to be run in a chaotic, uncontrolled manner, I think you'll lose a lot of the benefit it could otherwise bring the foundation. Well, I somewhat disagree here. I guess the biggest problem wrt the english site is/was that there has not been an english native-lang project within the OOo-project, thus there was no group like for example in the french and german NL-projects that were already familiar with working together on website content and familiar with collaborating in an opensource project. English content on the OOo website has been created by lots of different people, none being in an english project, over a rather long period of time. The OOo website redesign was a lengthy process, but involved a lot of people (which was a good thing). I think it is worth to get back to that working style, although it sometimes introduces unnecessary delays or lengthy discussions - we won't have the time pressure anymore. In any case, may I encourage you to take some clear decisions about this over the next few days? +1 for having a dedicated Publisher/Reviewer group for proofreading the submissions, dealing as contact-point for new contributors, but -1 for limiting that group to such a small group of people, esp. you definitely need to involve design/artwork more. ciao Christian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi Christian, David, all, I'm not a SC member, but I'd like to support Christian's proposals: Christian Lohmaier schrieb: Hi David, *, On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:33 AM, David Nelsoncomme...@traduction.biz wrote: I'd like to suggest that there should be an editing team officially appointed: An editing team is a good idea, however We definitely need people feeling responsible for their specific area of expertize / interest. By using the SilverStripe features to create pages and let them be reviewed before final publishing we will be able to keep the website quality high while increasing the website team (when people have shown their dedication and skills). - one *English NL* executive editor (with publishing/admin powers), one is not enough, as one might be ill/on vacation, etc. +1 I think native lang contributors are important, but not necessarily the only ones to finally approve every content. Also it doesn't quite fit in the community idea - Charles Schulz, Florian Effenberger and Italo Vignoli as managing editors (with publishing/admin powers). I'd rather have more of managing editors - not sure whether there needs to be a dedicate executive editor position, but rather a couple of managing editors But same as above, the list is too short, esp. as those people are heavily involved in other areas. I don't understand what these managing editors should do :-( Should they decide which content is allowed to be placed on the website, while the executive editor takes only care of the right wording? If so, these three people are way too heavily involved in other important tasks to be consulted with any new paragraph, news item or press release. To kick-start it, it might be enough, but it should quickly be expanded to include other people who have contributed in a reasonable fashion/have proven that they are capable of the task. +1 - one person from Design, Christoph Noack, with author powers, to consult with about buttons and images. I don't otherwise see the Design team playing much of a role in the running of the website, beyond ensuring compliance with the graphic charter (which is principally imposed by the theme). -1 Especially in terms of design, artworkt, etc. you cannot have enough contributors. We need a consistent theming / visual design for the website. But this doesn't mean that every image, screenshot or button has to be created or approved by Christoph. Christoph is our most recognized UX expert, so his word is important in theming and visual structure too. Having one peer contact: Yes, this is desireable (i.e. one who forwards the requests of the website team and reports back the results of the design team). Here I'd like to see two at least like you mentioned above... As it is hard enough to get artwork to put up on the site, you shouldn't artificially limit the amount of possible contributors by only having one person with powers. I don't think that David wants to reduce the number of contributors: A contact person (or two) is good in several cases, as you already stated above, but contributions should be able by all designers (I don't think they need to upload their artwork on their own - a dedicated area in the wiki would help the website authors too). - one or two technical administrators: Christian Lohmaier and Erich Christian (with admin powers). My suggestion would be that they do limit themselves to *technical* administration alone, without any interest in the content side (this is what they currently do with the other NL sites). This should be no problem, as at least we two have other areas to work with as well :-) However I surely have an interest in the content part, since the content in the end determines what features to add to the site, etc. Focus surely is on the technical part. I don't see any reason to restrict any contribution by anybody - especially Christian and Erich have been working on website content for years at OOo. Why shouldn't they be allowed to work here too? - one contributors team, principally of English NL speakers (each member with author powers). Yes, success or failure all depends on the contributors. And this means contributor with different mother language too. Native speakers can serve as proof-readers, as this would lower the barrier for others and reduce the work load for the native speakers. IMHO, if you organize things like this, you will have a tool that is efficiently run and that will provide TDF with the most-effective marketing platform. If you allow the site to be run in a chaotic, uncontrolled manner, I think you'll lose a lot of the benefit it could otherwise bring the foundation. You describe two extreme positions - I think the truth lies in between: We need a team of people feeling responsible for the different areas of work inside the website team. These people should be mentioned as contacts for their area of expertise on the wiki - I don't think
