Re: Encouraging participation
On 01/11/2012 Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:21 PM, jan iversen wrote: - We need to focus more on people who want to help, instead of using all the legal stuff (which are necessary) as a buffer not to move things. (e.g. I got 2 volunteers working on a danish translation, highly motivated, now we are discussing details about how to release the stuff). ... I don't think anyone is using legal stuff' to prevent things from moving forward. There is a bit of confusion here. One thing is allowing volunteers to have feedback on their work, the other one is releasing their work. For feedback we needn't focus on legal issues. So the Danish translation as discussed in https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121179 will be integrated in any next 3.4.x (informal, i.e., snapshots) builds. The legal stuff is not playing any roles here. But it is certainly true that a new volunteer is encouraged the best when they can contribute today and see their results released tomorrow. I'd focus on used rather than released: it is more motivating to see their results used (i.e., a snapshot build) soon than to see them released after months. And this is where we should improve. To give volunteers feedback we only need a very lightweight process, ideally zero. What is delaying us with the current translations, for example, is just that we need to determine a suitable deadline for translators to check in their PO files, integrating them on http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/branches/AOO34/ and building snapshot for AOO34. At the moment this is indeed quite demanding on Juergen and Ariel. - I think events like ApacheCon is nice, but events like FOSDEM is quite a lot more important for the ordinary openSource developer. And we are planning a dev room at Fosdem for that reason. By FOSDEM (and ideally much earlier) we must be ready to integrate new volunteers in a way that fully satisfies them and the project. This is a priority for OpenOffice as a project. We are getting close to this for what concerns localization: I expect that in a couple weeks we will be able to involve, engage and satisfy localization volunteers with an established process. We must then do the same for QA, development, Marketing... An important result we should achieve is that nobody should feel frustrated by not having committer privileges: it is also up to us to define tasks that can be done without depending too much on a committer helping the contributor. At least we should warn them: if someone wants to rebuild an entire section of the OpenOffice website, like it is happening with Jan, he should be told in advance that this contribution is really welcome (and that, for most sections, we really need it!) but that at a certain point he might feel frustration for not being a committer. There are hundreds of tasks that can be done by non-committers, and we should keep the distinction clear when we advertise tasks for volunteers. (That said, the privileges of being a committer or a PMC member are greatly exaggerated at times... it's not that much really; but when this is the only obstacle to getting things really done, I can understand the impatience). Regards, Andrea.
Re: Encouraging participation
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 05:54:56PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote: What is delaying us with the current translations, for example, is just that we need to determine a suitable deadline for translators to check in their PO files, integrating them on http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/branches/AOO34/ and building snapshot for AOO34. At the moment this is indeed quite demanding on Juergen and Ariel. Note that building is not that demanding: as long as there is no build breaker, it's simply running a script, because the local build environment has already been tested on previous builds. The same goes for uploading packages, a simple scp command. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgp6AJezKAQmV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Encouraging participation
On 2 November 2012 17:54, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 01/11/2012 Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:21 PM, jan iversen wrote: - We need to focus more on people who want to help, instead of using all the legal stuff (which are necessary) as a buffer not to move things. (e.g. I got 2 volunteers working on a danish translation, highly motivated, now we are discussing details about how to release the stuff). ... I don't think anyone is using legal stuff' to prevent things from moving forward. There is a bit of confusion here. One thing is allowing volunteers to have feedback on their work, the other one is releasing their work. For feedback we needn't focus on legal issues. So the Danish translation as discussed in https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=121179https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121179 will be integrated in any next 3.4.x (informal, i.e., snapshots) builds. The legal stuff is not playing any roles here. But it is certainly true that a new volunteer is encouraged the best when they can contribute today and see their results released tomorrow. I'd focus on used rather than released: it is more motivating to see their results used (i.e., a snapshot build) soon than to see them released after months. And this is where we should improve. To give volunteers feedback we only need a very lightweight process, ideally zero. What is delaying us with the current translations, for example, is just that we need to determine a suitable deadline for translators to check in their PO files, integrating them on http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/** incubator/ooo/branches/AOO34/http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/branches/AOO34/and building snapshot for AOO34. At the moment this is indeed quite demanding on Juergen and Ariel. - I think events like ApacheCon is nice, but events like FOSDEM is quite a lot more important for the ordinary openSource developer. And we are planning a dev room at Fosdem for that reason. By FOSDEM (and ideally much earlier) we must be ready to integrate new volunteers in a way that fully satisfies them and the project. This is a priority for OpenOffice as a project. We are getting close to this for what concerns localization: I expect that in a couple weeks we will be able to involve, engage and satisfy localization volunteers with an established process. We must then do the same for QA, development, Marketing... An important result we should achieve is that nobody should feel frustrated by not having committer privileges: it is also up to us to define tasks that can be done without depending too much on a committer helping the contributor. At least we should warn them: if someone wants to rebuild an entire section of the OpenOffice website, like it is happening with Jan, he should be told in advance that this contribution is really welcome (and that, for most sections, we really need it!) but that at a certain point he might feel frustration for not being a committer. There are hundreds of tasks that can be done by non-committers, and we should keep the distinction clear when we advertise tasks for volunteers. (That said, the privileges of being a committer or a PMC member are greatly exaggerated at times... it's not that much really; but when this is the only obstacle to getting things really done, I can understand the impatience). I think I got ample warning ahead of doing the rewrite of l10n, what surprised was the discussion going on right now, that is quite frustrating, especially because I opened the theme before I did the work, and nobody complained, on the contrary many said yes please do. If you things like I do it can be quite frustrating not to have committer status, not at all for the privilege, but because I have to waster a committers valuable time, doing simple jobs. So the sentence it's not that much really, is not quite correct, it can be quite time saving. Regards, Andrea.
Re: Encouraging participation
On Nov 2, 2012, at 2:12 PM, jan iversen wrote: On 2 November 2012 17:54, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 01/11/2012 Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:21 PM, jan iversen wrote: - We need to focus more on people who want to help, instead of using all the legal stuff (which are necessary) as a buffer not to move things. (e.g. I got 2 volunteers working on a danish translation, highly motivated, now we are discussing details about how to release the stuff). ... I don't think anyone is using legal stuff' to prevent things from moving forward. There is a bit of confusion here. One thing is allowing volunteers to have feedback on their work, the other one is releasing their work. For feedback we needn't focus on legal issues. So the Danish translation as discussed in https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=121179https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121179 will be integrated in any next 3.4.x (informal, i.e., snapshots) builds. The legal stuff is not playing any roles here. But it is certainly true that a new volunteer is encouraged the best when they can contribute today and see their results released tomorrow. I'd focus on used rather than released: it is more motivating to see their results used (i.e., a snapshot build) soon than to see them released after months. And this is where we should improve. To give volunteers feedback we only need a very lightweight process, ideally zero. What is delaying us with the current translations, for example, is just that we need to determine a suitable deadline for translators to check in their PO files, integrating them on http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/** incubator/ooo/branches/AOO34/http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/branches/AOO34/and building snapshot for AOO34. At the moment this is indeed quite demanding on Juergen and Ariel. - I think events like ApacheCon is nice, but events like FOSDEM is quite a lot more important for the ordinary openSource developer. And we are planning a dev room at Fosdem for that reason. By FOSDEM (and ideally much earlier) we must be ready to integrate new volunteers in a way that fully satisfies them and the project. This is a priority for OpenOffice as a project. We are getting close to this for what concerns localization: I expect that in a couple weeks we will be able to involve, engage and satisfy localization volunteers with an established process. We must then do the same for QA, development, Marketing... An important result we should achieve is that nobody should feel frustrated by not having committer privileges: it is also up to us to define tasks that can be done without depending too much on a committer helping the contributor. At least we should warn them: if someone wants to rebuild an entire section of the OpenOffice website, like it is happening with Jan, he should be told in advance that this contribution is really welcome (and that, for most sections, we really need it!) but that at a certain point he might feel frustration for not being a committer. There are hundreds of tasks that can be done by non-committers, and we should keep the distinction clear when we advertise tasks for volunteers. (That said, the privileges of being a committer or a PMC member are greatly exaggerated at times... it's not that much really; but when this is the only obstacle to getting things really done, I can understand the impatience). I think I got ample warning ahead of doing the rewrite of l10n, what surprised was the discussion going on right now, that is quite frustrating, especially because I opened the theme before I did the work, and nobody complained, on the contrary many said yes please do. If you things like I do it can be quite frustrating not to have committer status, not at all for the privilege, but because I have to waster a committers valuable time, doing simple jobs. You are not wasting a committers valuable time. The committer's time is spent evaluating your contribution. When the committer(s) begin to feel that their time is beginning to be wasted that is the point they ought to suggest to the PMC that it is time DISCUSS giving the individual committers rights. This discussion occurs in private, the discussion is then followed by a private VOTE that lasts at least 3 days. EIther or both of these processes can be public on the dev list. If the community thinks that a private DISCUSS followed by a public VOTE would encourage contributors then I would be for changing the policy. Perhaps to the following. (1) Private DISCUSS on potential new Committers lasting at least 72 hours until there is clear CONSENSUS. (2) Chair contacts the contributor to make sure they are interested and to let them know a VOTE is coming. (3) Potential Committer confirms interest to private. (4) VOTE is started on dev @ oo.a.o. Lasts 72 hours. (5) ICLA, Account creation and Karma grant occur
Re: Encouraging participation
On 2 November 2012 22:31, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Nov 2, 2012, at 2:12 PM, jan iversen wrote: On 2 November 2012 17:54, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 01/11/2012 Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:21 PM, jan iversen wrote: - We need to focus more on people who want to help, instead of using all the legal stuff (which are necessary) as a buffer not to move things. (e.g. I got 2 volunteers working on a danish translation, highly motivated, now we are discussing details about how to release the stuff). ... I don't think anyone is using legal stuff' to prevent things from moving forward. There is a bit of confusion here. One thing is allowing volunteers to have feedback on their work, the other one is releasing their work. For feedback we needn't focus on legal issues. So the Danish translation as discussed in https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=121179 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121179 will be integrated in any next 3.4.x (informal, i.e., snapshots) builds. The legal stuff is not playing any roles here. But it is certainly true that a new volunteer is encouraged the best when they can contribute today and see their results released tomorrow. I'd focus on used rather than released: it is more motivating to see their results used (i.e., a snapshot build) soon than to see them released after months. And this is where we should improve. To give volunteers feedback we only need a very lightweight process, ideally zero. What is delaying us with the current translations, for example, is just that we need to determine a suitable deadline for translators to check in their PO files, integrating them on http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/** incubator/ooo/branches/AOO34/ http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/branches/AOO34/and building snapshot for AOO34. At the moment this is indeed quite demanding on Juergen and Ariel. - I think events like ApacheCon is nice, but events like FOSDEM is quite a lot more important for the ordinary openSource developer. And we are planning a dev room at Fosdem for that reason. By FOSDEM (and ideally much earlier) we must be ready to integrate new volunteers in a way that fully satisfies them and the project. This is a priority for OpenOffice as a project. We are getting close to this for what concerns localization: I expect that in a couple weeks we will be able to involve, engage and satisfy localization volunteers with an established process. We must then do the same for QA, development, Marketing... An important result we should achieve is that nobody should feel frustrated by not having committer privileges: it is also up to us to define tasks that can be done without depending too much on a committer helping the contributor. At least we should warn them: if someone wants to rebuild an entire section of the OpenOffice website, like it is happening with Jan, he should be told in advance that this contribution is really welcome (and that, for most sections, we really need it!) but that at a certain point he might feel frustration for not being a committer. There are hundreds of tasks that can be done by non-committers, and we should keep the distinction clear when we advertise tasks for volunteers. (That said, the privileges of being a committer or a PMC member are greatly exaggerated at times... it's not that much really; but when this is the only obstacle to getting things really done, I can understand the impatience). I think I got ample warning ahead of doing the rewrite of l10n, what surprised was the discussion going on right now, that is quite frustrating, especially because I opened the theme before I did the work, and nobody complained, on the contrary many said yes please do. If you things like I do it can be quite frustrating not to have committer status, not at all for the privilege, but because I have to waster a committers valuable time, doing simple jobs. You are not wasting a committers valuable time. The committer's time is spent evaluating your contribution. When the committer(s) begin to feel that their time is beginning to be wasted that is the point they ought to suggest to the PMC that it is time DISCUSS giving the individual committers rights. This discussion occurs in private, the discussion is then followed by a private VOTE that lasts at least 3 days. EIther or both of these processes can be public on the dev list. I think I formulated myself badly, there is a process for being invited to be committer and I have NO opinion on that process, except it sounds reasonable to me !! The part about time waste (regarding the l10n website), is currently a discussion on l10n, so we should not also discuss it here. If the community thinks that a private DISCUSS followed by a public VOTE would encourage
