Hi :) Yes, but rather than learn new words for all those sorts of things i thought it was smart to re-use words that we ARE familiar with in order to give a close approximation to what is going on.
LO is a meritocracy which suggests there are leaders leading. There is some sort of management structure that has some sort of hierarchy but one that can respond sensibly to people's changing lives rather than being stagnant and brittle. We don't need to know the exact details and just using words that are similar enough is good enough for us on this list. If people want details then they can probably find them out easily enough by joining the devs list or looking around their wiki and places. It's not hidden it's just too much for me to think about right now and their are tons of ways they could have structured it sensibly to deal with the type of work they do. The main point is that devs are roughly equal to rock gods imo while we hang around helping people with their tickets and point them to the bar. Regards from Tom :) >________________________________ > From: Dr. R. O Stapf <reinh...@stapf-online.com> >To: users@global.libreoffice.org >Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012, 11:08 >Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] ... not working ... > >I don't mean that a single manager makes all decisions and the team has to >follow. The word >"manager" could and should be understood also as "management team", "decision >making team", >"leadership", etc. > >I am not familiar with the structure of the dev team and decision making >processes. Thus, I used >simply "manager". At the end it is the dev team bringing LO forward. Let me >repeat myself, but I >respect these people a lot and I am very grateful for all the work they did >and do. > > >On 18.10.2012 16:44, Tom Davies wrote: >> Hi :) >> +1 >> I think that it's precisely because we see so much great development being >> done that we get excited about it and want more. Also the fact that people >> can post bug-reports and even non-coders opinions do get listened makes us >> feel like we can "off-load". So, a lot of the criticisms are not >> necessarily about LO specifically but about IT in general. >> >> ROSt talks about management decisions and hints about those being imposed on >> a workforce because that's the easier way for most of us on the Users List >> to understand it. I suspect that most of us either do now or have at some >> point worked in traditional offices in mainstream management structures. In >> LO i imagine the equivalent is leadership rather than management. >> Inspiration and initiative rather than "just following orders". Personal >> investment and interest in achieving goals. It is leading to some >> impressive results. >> >> Regards from >> Tom :) >> >> >> --- On Thu, 18/10/12, rost52 <bugquestcon...@online.de> wrote: >> >> From: rost52 <bugquestcon...@online.de> >> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] ... not working ... >> To: users@global.libreoffice.org >> Date: Thursday, 18 October, 2012, 7:44 >> >> Hi Joel, >> >> I think nobody blames the dev team for not working enough; in contrast all >> appreciate the work done by the dev team, being it new features or bug fixes. >> >> For my understanding the concerns and opinions expressed here are more >> related to the ratio of devs being allocate to new features versus bug >> fixes. I think most of us also understand that first the number of devs is >> limited, and second the decision on how many devs on new features and how >> many on bug fixes is not an easy one. It is a management decisions, which >> can turn out right or wrong. And for management decisions one needs a lot of >> information. Speaking for myself I would regard these comments as additional >> information. >> >> In this sense, please regard the messages in this forum as additional >> information, which could.should help decision makers to make decisions. And >> should a decision turn out to be wrong, there is no problem in changing >> course. The worst thing a manager can do is, not to make a decision. Without >> decision there is no change to the situation and thus no chance for >> improvement. >> >> Let me thank here again all devs doing great jobs in developing and >> improving LO. >> >> ROSt >> >> Maybe I take C++ classes when I retire.... LO would be worth to do. >> >> >> >> >> On 18.10.2012 14:36, Joel Madero wrote: >>> Let alone regressions which are just accepted as a part of software >>> development. Ultimately, mistakes happen, and when a software code base has >>> been transferred left and right and had a ton of people randomly working on >>> it (which is exactly what happens with open source software), a lot of the >>> job of a developer coming onto the project is just playing "catch up" and >>> guessing and what a previous developer was attempting to do. Again, I >>> highly suggest taking a few C++ classes and then it'll become apparent that >>> the idea that we should stop everything and get every single bug squashed >>> (>5,000), is not a realistic stance. We should and we are (I guarantee >>> this) doing everything in our power to prioritize bugs and take care of >>> those bugs that are >>> >>> a) most annoying >>> >>> b) affecting the most users >>> >>> c) resulting in data loss >>> >>> We are a young project and this is a goal that has been set. Being young, >>> this is a goal, not a fact. If you're interested in seeing how much work is >>> done on a daily basis, just follow gerrit (our code tracker), or sit in IRC >>> and look at the incredibly brilliant conversations that happen to find >>> solutions to many of the problems that are being reported. >>> >>> Just to give another point, we are averaging more than 5 new reports PER >>> DAY. Our QA team is a group of volunteers no more than 7 or 8 strong. Each >>> of these bugs has to go through a long process just to verify, ensure that >>> it's not a duplicate, communicate with the user who reported it, and then >>> priortize it. That's JUST getting the bug confirmed, then it gets put into >>> the stack where a very small group of dedicated developers tackle them, one >>> by one. A single bug can take a week + to tackle (that's 40+ hours). Let's >>> say the average bug takes 10 hours (a massive understatement), that's >>> 50,000 hours worth of work to tackle the 5,000 or so confirmed bugs. >>> >>> Seeing these off hand remarks about how we should develop the product is >>> disheartening. I wish that more people would take a class at their local >>> community college, or take a free online course, and start to put their >>> thoughts to work on our code. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Joel >>> >>> On 10/17/2012 10:23 PM, Jay Lozier wrote: >>>> On 10/18/2012 01:08 AM, Joel Madero wrote: >>>>> On 10/17/2012 06:29 PM, anne-ology wrote: >>>>>> ... Thanks :-) >>>>>> maybe now more will realize what we're saying ;-) >>>>> This is simply unrealistic. For anyone who has any experience with >>>>> programming this would be known. No offense but with a ratio of 100,000:1 >>>>> or more users to developers, the idea that we would just squash all bugs >>>>> and stop releasing new versions isn't realistic at all and thus why >>>>> developers wouldn't respond to this recommendation. If you want to help I >>>>> suggest taking some C++ classes and getting involved with the code. Most >>>>> of us are volunteers who do this with our spare time, I hope you all keep >>>>> that in mind >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Joel >>>> Another problem for all programs in wide release is wide hardware >>>> variability in the Windows and Linux worlds especially when compared to >>>> Macs. There could be a very odd hardware/driver interaction that was never >>>> discovered in alpha, beta, or release candidate previews with specific >>>> hardware combinations. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Pertti Rönnberg <p...@elisanet.fi> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> BRAVO Anne-Ology!! >>>>>>> Exactly that message - only in other words -- I have repeatedly tried to >>>>>>> tell to the LibO-experts (devs) since January: >>>>>>> they must take a brake in developing and take a certain version (e.g. >>>>>>> 3.4.xx) and make every module of the suite - Base included - absolutely >>>>>>> free of bugs and inconsistencies both in programming and the >>>>>>> instructions >>>>>>> and especially the LibO-Help. >>>>>>> Every feature shall have a clear explanation and a detailed guiding >>>>>>> how-to >>>>>>> in the LibO-Help -- easily understood by any average non-expert user. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Obviously I've been crying in vain because I have not noticed any >>>>>>> (re)actions -- the developing of new versions is continuing with the >>>>>>> result >>>>>>> of an increasing activity on this list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have LibO3.4.6 installed (Win7) but avoid using it (Calc, Base) >>>>>>> because >>>>>>> I have better to do than struggle with problems. >>>>>>> I would like to know which LibO version for the time being can be >>>>>>> considered as the most reliable and productive -- especially regarding >>>>>>> Base. >>>>>>> It would also be interesting to see an (valid) evaluation of that >>>>>>> reliable >>>>>>> usability on a scale 1-10 for each of the the different modules of >>>>>>> versions >>>>>>> 3.4.xx, 3.5.xx.x, 3.6.xx.x >>>>>>> Pertti Rönnberg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 16.10.2012 18:15, anne-ology wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is the reason I have no intention of updating from 3.4 >>>>>>>>until >>>>>>>> ALL these bugs are worked out - >>>>>>>> then I'll update to 3.5; yes, I'll always be behind >>>>>>>>BUT I >>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>> have the hassles of these bugs ;-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:22 AM, teatimest <teatim...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've been using v3.4 of LibreOffice. I updated to v3.6.2.2 and now the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> contents of documents are not indexed for search. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm using 64-bit Windows 7. The extension odt is checked for the >>>>>>>>> indexing >>>>>>>>> option. I also checked the "Index Properties and File Contents" in the >>>>>>>>> Indexing Option in Windows. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When I search, doc files and ppt files appears in the result but not >>>>>>>>> odt >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> odp. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is it just me or is this known bug? The same thing happened when I >>>>>>>>> updated >>>>>>>>> to v3.5 so I went back to v3.4 for the searchability. Is there any >>>>>>>>> workaround? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tea >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org >> Problems? >> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ >> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be >> deleted >> >> > > > >-- >For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org >Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ >All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted > > > > -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
