Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Mirek, all,

I agree that we should have leads to give an orientation to the design team.
However I don't agree with

"As Theodor
Nelson writes (and Jan Borchardt reiterates [1]), "The integration of
software cannot be achieved by committee, where everyone has to put in
their own additions (featuritis again). It must be controlled by
dictatorial artists with full say on the final cut. " "

I have experienced some committees against "creeping featurism" when I suggested new features (gnu-core-utils for example). I have no clue of what is the proportion of "committees" in open source software who fight strongly against featuritis but in my modest experience there is always someone against any new feature in any "committee". Probably there is no difference on featuritis between average committee and average dictator. To be honest, I'm quite bored of gratuitous attacks against democracy, debate, vote, etc.
If you can provide facts and data on this topic, I'll be happy to learn.

In order to be constructive and concrete, here is how I think we should have leads :
- leads should be elected for 6 months,
- if for some position, nobody applies, then the design team self-organizes (for the best and the worse as usual ;) ) - leads give an orientation to the work of the design team, organize the debate without censorship, - if a particular point yields a lot of conflicting opinions, the final say goes to a vote after all rationnal arguments have been synthetized by the lead.

Please comment any of these 4 points.

Best regards,

On 19/06/2014 15:47, Sophie wrote:
Hi Mirek,
Le 19/06/2014 15:35, Mirek M. a écrit :
Hi Sophie,

Sorry to jump in with a side question about the other aspects out of the
product. How can we reach your team when we need visual or design
specifics for events or any action organized by the other projects. Are
you too short in volunteers and we need to help you grow this part of
the community or is it something you're not invested in?

Yes, I would say we're short on volunteers, and those volunteers tend to be
short on time.

Motivation might be a factor -- I think the organizational chaos that there
is now can be discouraging and I'd like to try to fix that.
Yes, that's what I understand, hence my proposal to separate the project
in two groups.

Would it be better for your team that we have two separate projects: one
dedicated to the product design, the other one to the designs needed  by
the community projects?

I'm not sure. I guess ideally leads would cater to all TDF-related projects
and would act as managers.
ok, your the one who knows better here :)
Right now, though, I'm afraid a lot of the design work will fall on the
leads themselves, or just not get done.
yes, that's what usually happen when we miss volunteers.
Perhaps that's not relevant, though? Should we just have leads take care of
all the projects and be responsible for finding the necessary volunteers?
but the other project should support you here, it's really difficult to
do all the work and try to find volunteers at the same time :)
Actually, and please don't take it as a criticism, it seems very
difficult to get some designs done for events or items and I really
would like to help to solve this :)

Yes, I know, sorry; though huge props to KJ, who tends to save the day.
yes, thanks a lot to him and (I'm always afraid he feels exhausted by
all our demands ;)
Please chime in with any organizational ideas you might have.
I'll think about it, and will see what we can organize with the NLPs and
the marketing project to take a special action to help you. I'll report
back on this list.
Thanks a lot for your feedback :)

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: 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.