Hi Michael, all!
I cannot resist :-) I'd like to add some more thoughts, because I think
it will be helpful for other topics as well ...
Am Freitag, den 07.01.2011, 19:50 +0930 schrieb Michael Wheatland:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Christoph Noack <email@example.com>wrote:
The idea is to have a suggest an extension, then approval system prior
publishing on the extensions directory.
[... explanation and discussion ...]
[... my talkative bla bla ...]
Finally, my request to you (Drupal Team) is: Please have a look what a
community needs to help itself. Rather base your initial decisions on
what a large group of people (limited domain knowledge, limited time)
can do within the community, instead of what a small group of people
(experts, full-time) can do for the community. 
Sophie, others, any further thoughts?
Regarding your comments about the business vs personal use case, I don't
believe that there is any sizable difference in user expectations these
True, although we do have some variance with regard to our user base -
or let's say, we do not only sell the product, but also the idea of
freedom / open-source. Users get the whole "package" - the majority aims
for the "ready to go" solution, but there will be users that accept a
less than ideal solution (Is this "me" talking here? *g*), and there
will be users we want to turn into contributors.
So in our case, it is more challenging (but a great challenge) to suit
all those needs at the same time :-)
As LibreOffice will be looking at
new infrastructure, I feel we can improve this situation, and possibly
contribute some ideas back to the OOo community as we see the feedback and
results from any changes.
Especially with regard to the extensions and the templates, the website
infrastructure is just a tiny part of the solution. We (LibO/OOo) fall
short with regard to how templates and extensions are offered. If there
is a superior solution, then the we need developer (API) support ... but
this is another topic.
I am very interested to hear other view points on this topic, but fear
disrupting the flow of work at the moment.
Again, we will be reviewing the ideas and implementation at a later date
when time is permitting.
Thanks for considering the "flow" :-)
On the other hand, I perceive it much more disruptive if it is silent
for quite a while and - suddenly - a statement like "the idea is to have
a suggest an extension, then approval system prior to publishing on the
extensions directory" pops up. Then, time is spend in clarifying the
issue ... I'd rather like to invest this in advance.
Otherwise, it will happen quite frequently that certain topics
(important to some people) will be addressed without considering
available knowledge / experience.
The extension / template is stuff like that ... for example, we
discussed some parts during our "User Experience Done Live 2009"
session. And, of course, continued to do so in the evening and later in
Hamburg. If you look for "extensions" on the OOo ux-discuss mailing
list, there will be plenty of results.
To get an idea:
Finally, I would strongly suggest to move all discussions related to
Drupal to the website mailing list. That makes it far easier to follow.
And if people require to focus on different work topics, they (like me
*g*) will omit the messages - so it would be great if we could agree on
a tag like [Drupal] for the subject.
Would that be okay?
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/design/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy