Documentation Team Leader?

Hi Jean & all

Another +1 from me

Regards

Ian

Hi, It'd be great if you could stick up your hand.
My best regards .. Carlos Martinez

Jean Hollis Weber skrev 2011-04-23 05:30:

Short response:
+1 from me
and especially the use of ODT as format of source docs.

Longer response:

Having lurked around the Authors group for a while, I firmly believe in
some form of leadership, else we all tend to leave it to others and
concentrate on our day job! ;=)

As a well known management consultant here in CH said: RESULTS, RESULTS,
RESULTS. Nothing else really counts.

And Jean has proven over a number of years that she can deliver and round
up the flock to do things to advance the documentation.

regards
Martin

Hi Jean & all

Another +1 from me

Regards

Ian

Indeed. As you are a responsible steward of the documentation for open
document office suites with a proven track record, a level-headed
mediator who inspires trust and loyalty, a methodical worker whose
pursuance of completion sets the stroke for the whole community, yes,
I consider you suitable. And needed.

-- jdc

+1
Namastè! :slight_smile:

I think that I'd prefer just to talk of a role acting as a responsive
central contact rather than a team leader as such.

I think we need both, and the two roles need not be done by the same
person. When I get home I'll try to find some of the earlier
discussions and put together a draft summarizing what I think we need
people to do in terms of getting new members started, coordinating
user guide production, liaising with other teams, etc etc.

People can be
highly active and available some of the time, but need to pull back a
bit at other times to deal with other things. So I prefer the
"leadership" to float and simply fall de facto on the most-active
member(s) of the team at a given moment.

The problem with that is: often no one steps up to do what needs to be
done. But I certainly agree that anyone can and should feel free to
take the lead on whatever interests them.

IMHO, each contributor should feel liberty of action and freedom to
take a lead role in an initiative, without feeling they have to defer
to an official or unofficial team leader.

Absolutely agree: no need to "defer". I certainly don't see the role
of "leader" in any way as "being in charge" in the sense of others
needing to "defer" to the leader.

I like the way people have
been discussing and negotiating together about work, without any one
person feeling they have a weightier opinion than someone else.

Again I agree, but as stated in my original note, several people have
asked for someone to lead the group. Perhaps Jeremy or others can say
what they would like the role of leader to encompass.

Actually what I am most interested In is the user guides, not the
whole overall documentation effort, and I would much prefer to have at
least one person taking responsibility for each book rather than one
person for all of them. But to get work done (books published),
sometimes (often) the ideal must give way to reality.

jean

Hi, :slight_smile:

My 2 cents:

@Jean: I think you have many excellent qualifications to *compete* to
be team leader.

@Jean, all: But I don't think a team leader could be properly
appointed at this time. Plus, a team leader should only be appointed
by team vote after a competitive process. And the term and roles of a
team leader would have to be clearly defined beforehand.

A team vote by the Engilsh docs team should only be conducted among
recognized and active English docs contributors who are accepted
LibreOffice community members. The basic principles of the community
bylaws would really suggest that.

The MC has only just started work on intaking community members, and
so the subset of approved community members and active English docs
team contributors is still very fuzzy and evolving.

The English docs project could only benefit from a period of
competitive contribution between contenders for the team leader
position, and there are a number of people that I can think of who
have excellent qualifications (Jean included). In around six months,
the LibreOffice project and, certainly, the English docs project would
then be in a much more mature situation, and a defendable vote could
then be held.

To date, I have noticed that every single active contributor to
EngDocs (I just coined a tag for the team name!) has a tendency to
need to go MIA from time to time to deal with other stuff in daily
life ("disappear off in the bush"). And there has been quite some
churn among the contributors. So you couldn't really take a proper
vote at this time that could credibly be proposed to and defended
before the SC.

@Jean: if the situation has now changed for you and you feel able to
put contribution to LibO EngDocs before your work for ODFAuthors and
OpenOffice.org, then that's really superb and what I've encouraged you
about for a long time, on- and off-list. I'll be extremely happy to
collaborate with you on your ideas and proposals for the LibreOffice
documentation project, and to contribute helpfully to the work as much
as possible.

@Jean, all:
But, personally, I'd say let's put off the idea of any team leader
until September or October, and work as from now on organizing a
proper framework for things (the EngDocs project generally, and the
possible appointment of a team leader).

David Nelson

Hi Jean

Please go on, we all know what leading a doc project is and the necessity to have one person effectively and correctly managing and organizing things with respect to every body.
You have already proven for years that you are the good person to do that and this project need definitively some love.
Beside this, you have enough +1 to make sure you are legitimate in this role (which is not a title, to make it clears again).

Kind regards
Sophie

Hi, :slight_smile:

Please go on, we all know what leading a doc project is and the necessity to
have one person effectively and correctly managing and organizing things
with respect to every body.
You have already proven for years that you are the good person to do that
and this project need definitively some love.
Beside this, you have enough +1 to make sure you are legitimate in this role
(which is not a title, to make it clears again).

@Sophie: don't you have any regard at all for the community bylaws'
stated principles? It makes one wonder, because you're actually one of
the MC members... And I'm not sure that all SC members would
necessarily disagree with what I explained in my previous post...

David Nelson

Hi, :slight_smile:

Please go on, we all know what leading a doc project is and the necessity to
have one person effectively and correctly managing and organizing things
with respect to every body.
You have already proven for years that you are the good person to do that
and this project need definitively some love.
Beside this, you have enough +1 to make sure you are legitimate in this role
(which is not a title, to make it clears again).

@Sophie: don't you have any regard at all for the community bylaws'
stated principles? It makes one wonder, because you're actually one of
the MC members... And I'm not sure that all SC members would
necessarily disagree with what I explained in my previous post...

Didn't read your mail, as said it's a position and not a title, just like the one you take when you auto proclaimed your self the lead of this team.
Jean has proven *for years* her availability, disponibility, skills and competencies. Why should the project be reluctant with her offer when it has all to gain with it, it would just be stupid.
And again, it's not a title but a posture if you prefer, so I don't see anything to do with the TDF bylaws here.

Kind regards
Sophie

Hi, :slight_smile:

Beside this, you have enough +1 to make sure you are legitimate in this
role
(which is not a title, to make it clears again).

@Sophie: don't you have any regard at all for the community bylaws'
stated principles? It makes one wonder, because you're actually one of
the MC members... And I'm not sure that all SC members would
necessarily disagree with what I explained in my previous post...

Didn't read your mail, as said it's a position and not a title, just like
the one you take when you auto proclaimed your self the lead of this team.
Jean has proven *for years* her availability, disponibility, skills and
competencies. Why should the project be reluctant with her offer when it has
all to gain with it, it would just be stupid.
And again, it's not a title but a posture if you prefer, so I don't see
anything to do with the TDF bylaws here.

@Sophie: So far, I have seen only one other person who could possibly be
regarded as an "active member of the LibreOffice English docs team"
pronounce himself, but not more... For what I explained in my previous
post, please do read this entire thread then...

David Nelson

@Sophie: don't you have any regard at all for the community bylaws'
stated principles? It makes one wonder, because you're actually one of
the MC members... And I'm not sure that all SC members would
necessarily disagree with what I explained in my previous post...

David Nelson

@David, I must wonder what your intentions are with this community.

Hi, :slight_smile:

The documentation team currently has no lead, and, IMHO, we are unable
to function effectively like this. To make some *effective* progress
with producing the large amount of documentation that is currently
lacking, someone needs to become acting documentation team lead until
such time that TDF makes an official appointment.

I have 25 years of professional experience working with technical
documentation. I have only been involved in LibreOffice since the TDF
launch, but I have been doing some writing, proofreading and reviewing
for the project over the past couple of months. I am concerned and
care about the current state of inactivity and disarray in
documentation work.

I offer to taken on the leadership and coordination of the team until
that time. Florian Effenberger has agreed to grant me wiki
administrator rights, so I will be able to do things such as
reorganize the documentation pages, move pages, protect pages, delete
pages, undelete pages and various other actions necessary for
establishing a workflow for the docs team.

I plan to organize regular team phone conferences, and to listen
carefully to the ideas and opinions that team members voice. But then,
after that, when a decision needs to be taken in order to allow
tangible progress with the team's work, I plan to announce a decision
and to proceed with whatever action is necessary to make it happen.

Obviously, I can't do all the work by myself, and I am hoping that
team members will feel that it's worthwhile to cooperate and
contribute, and that a significant number of you will also take part
in the work with me.

If anyone feels that they are better qualified to take on this role,
and is willing to put significant time and work into the project to
make things really start happening, then please do speak up, and we
can let meritocracy and natural democracy decide the issue. If there
are other candidates, we can organize a vote by team members. (Let's
define a team member as someone who speaks up in this thread, and who
is willing to actually work on documentation, not just lurk silently
or unproductively flame and distract the debate.)

I have already approached some SC members. They told me that the
organization is not yet there to make any official appointment, but
that there is no reason why I can't take on the role on an acting
basis, if I can convince team members to work with me. So I have
*some* kind of tacit approval to try and make this work. Let's say
that my understanding is that they will stand back and watch what
develops. And then at a later date they will make their official
decisions as they see fit. But this is certainly *not* an
officially-approved initiative.

I want to provoke a response from as many of you as possible. :slight_smile:

If you support my "coup d'etat", respond with +1.

If you feel you're a better candidate, then please speak up and tell
us *why* and what your concretely propositions are. In that case, I
hope you're willing to back that up by contributing lots of active
work and time to the project. Because I promise that *I* am.

If you actively disapprove of my initiative, then respond with -1.

If you lurk and say nothing, I will consider that I have your tacit
approval.

Please can *all* concerned documentation workers please speak up?
(Idle flamers and trolls, please refrain from adding unproductive
noise to this discussion.)

David Nelson

After you wrote this you were voted in and then apparently abandoned
post to work on the website. Ron Faile Jr., Jean Hollis Weber and others
completed some workflow for the wiki.

You then pushed for Alfresco, but didn't seem to do much in the way
of making it usable for the team. I used Jean Hollis Weber's workflow
and Ron Faile Jr.'s interpretation of that workflow to create a usable
tool for the team. After the site was usable, replete with reports, you
began getting involved and promptly erased every scrap of work the team
had contributed since LibreOffice began.

What's more, you told us so and then went silent. I salvaged some work,
Hal reimplemented some space structure and there was not an offer of
help from you, nor response when questioned directly.

When Jean Hollis Weber noticed a vacuum and the necessity for our team
to have a lead, she humbly offered her service. This is when you have
chosen to re-emerge with what seems vitriol toward contributing members
of the docs team.

I must wonder what your intentions are with this community.

Personally, I'd like to see one-big-happy. Currently, we are not one,
we are not big, and we are not happy.

-- jdc

Hi Jeremy, :slight_smile:

I have simple stated my 2 cents on things. I don't really see why
people have to get so intense about things, and why a subject and
different opinions can't be discussed without a confrontational
element creeping in, not to mention personal unpleasantness!

Some of you guys really need to learn some Zen. :slight_smile:

I am only one human being, and at the time I was working on the
LibreOffice website - an urgent need for the project at that time - I
did not have *much* time for contributing to docs, although I did
respond to every inquiry and question on the docs mailing list. At the
time, some people were pretty grateful for the fact that I practically
"dragged" libreoffice.org forward to live status, almost single-handedly.
But all that gets forgotten pretty quickly! :smiley:

As regards the Alfresco server problem, it was extremely unfortunate
about the problem that occurred with the original Alfresco
installation, and you can imagine I felt pretty bad myself. But you
just have to count it as part of the learning curve and move on.

Now Alfresco is being backed up externally to a TDF server every 3
hours, in addition to complete server backups three times a week to an
off-site location.

In addition, I've contacted the Alfresco project to invite them to
help us get the best out of Alfresco within a short time frame. I'll
post about that as soon as I have more news.

BTW, I have responded to the backlog of mailing list stuff having
accumulated over about 4 weeks, and have responded to direct mail,
too. Notably, I have responded to every inquiry and request concerning
Alfresco.

Anyway, I've stated my opinions above in this thread, without
unpleasantness or rudeness to anyone, and I stand by them. I'm pretty
thick-skinned, and am perfectly able to take a lot of flack from
people, as well as give it back in reasonable measure. And I still
believe in LibreOffice and intend to keep working with the English
docs team.

So you can expect to keep reading me on this list. :wink:

David Nelson

I would like to hear from Barbara and Ron in response to Jean's original
note, and anyone else on the English-language team, before I have my say.

Hal

I am not talking about a formal role or official title at this time, and
I am not interested in "competing" for such a role or title. I am
interested in helping the group become more productive, specifically
regarding the user guides.

I'd like to point out that I informally filled the role of "user guide
team leader" at OpenOffice.org for 5 or 6 years before I had any sort of
official title. Why should I not do the same here, if others (except for
you) have said they want me to do so?

IMO a formal title is fairly irrelevant within the project, although it
can be useful when talking with outsiders who expect hierarchy even when
there is none. On those occasions in OOo I would call myself "Lead
Editor", which fairly accurately described my role.

--Jean

I am not talking about a formal role or official title at this time, and

I am not interested in "competing" for such a role or title. I am
interested in helping the group become more productive, specifically
regarding the user guides.

I'd like to point out that I informally filled the role of "user guide
team leader" at OpenOffice.org for 5 or 6 years before I had any sort of
official title. Why should I not do the same here, if others (except for
you) have said they want me to do so?

IMO a formal title is fairly irrelevant within the project, although it
can be useful when talking with outsiders who expect hierarchy even when
there is none. On those occasions in OOo I would call myself "Lead
Editor", which fairly accurately described my role.

--Jean

@ ALL:

We of the Brazilian community have just recently "enjoyed" a big fight over
the "who is who" inside the community (culminating with the extinction of
the NGO BrOffice). What I have learned is this:

1) People work in FOSS because of some sort of recognition by their peers
(or by people they think are their peers). This brings out the best and
worst of everybody (ego is a dangerous two sided dagger). So people enjoy
the feeling that *THEY* did something, this is so true that LibO has a
tracking system to show who is the most active in developing patches and in
the Wiki / l10n. And as such people start thinking things as theirs (my
contribution, my translation, my team, my work, my precious ;). But this all
is not ours, we have forfeit our right to call it ours when we registered
with the project and accepted the GNU / CC license.

2) People will try to undermine somebody who tries to take a leading role,
it is instinctive: "someone is trying to be my boss, but wait! ... I got
into this thing so I didn't have to say 'yes sir' anymore". And this is true
and valid, I for one will not tolerate being bossed around even for a
fraction of my free time. But without some sort of accountability, and
without some sort of "master map" we are all going to step on each others
toes (believe me ... we had 3 persons translating the same chapter of the GS
guide ... what a waist of time and resources and what a bummer for the
newcomers).

3) This kind of discussion may seem very tiresome (and I for one agree it is
just that), but organizing the work-flow, and the roles of our member base
is very important ... and must be done FIRST ... even if it takes a few
man-hours away from the actual practical job at hand. I am not putting one
minute of my free time in the documentation effort until I see a work-flow
(I have too little free time to waist on a project I am not convinced that
will be of any value)

4) Voting on the way we think things should get done is THE BEST way for
everybody to get satisfied. We had votes on people who were registered users
of our discussion lists, but voting within the "actual workforce" is best
(get the GS guides and see who did what, those people's votes should be more
important than anyone else's)

5) This thing was supposed to be FUN ... a little useful, but mostly FUN ...
you see, documentation will be for a minority of users, most of them will
work with basic on-hands knowledge of the product. And then there is the
wiki and the users mailing list ... the companies that will make the
transition to our software will do (at least the majority of them) a
in-house training of some sort.
We start out as being EXPENDABLE, our work is futile and is outdated as soon
as we print it ... but am I with all this, still having FUN? Sure, so I
continue ... when it seems to much like work, I'll get out the same day.

This is not to say that any of you are right or wrong, but we need to get
our speech in the same wave length.
But just to make my point perfectly clear: This discussion is happening
because people think the project is THEIRS (or at leas that they are PART of
it) when the actual situation is that we are DONATING time and work to the
project, we are not the project (and that is a good thing, or the hole
project would stop if we weren't here any more).

So ... are YOU still having FUN ?

Rogerio

Hi :slight_smile:

Oops, i wrote an over-long email because i had not seen this one. Please ignore
my long ramble!

People do need to feel ownership over what they create so that they can take
pride in it and in the over-all work of the whole project knowing they own a
corner of it. This is where it is good to have sub-groups or working groups
that take responsibility for specific parts of the project. So far we seem to
have at least 3 groups
Alfresco tech
Alfresco work-flow
Non-alfresco tech & work-flow
People tend to be in more than 1 group at a time but it's fairly clear who is
the leader of each group.

I think we need to work with the structure we have and just formalise it.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Oops, i wrote an over-long email because i had not seen this one. Please ignore
my long ramble!

Too late, I already responded. :wink:

People do need to feel ownership over what they create so that they can take
pride in it and in the over-all work of the whole project knowing they own a
corner of it.

Absolutely agree. But some people want some guidance in their work. Be
clear on this: guidance,not control over that work.

> This is where it is good to have sub-groups or working groups
that take responsibility for specific parts of the project. So far we seem to
have at least 3 groups
Alfresco tech
Alfresco work-flow
Non-alfresco tech & work-flow
People tend to be in more than 1 group at a time but it's fairly clear who is
the leader of each group.

I think we need to work with the structure we have and just formalise it.

One group is "user guide development" and some people in that group are
the ones asking me to lead that group. I don't see any particular need
at this point to formalise anything (in that I agree with David).

What is "Non-alfresco tech & work-flow" in your view? In the earlier
note you had my name by that, but I'm unclear what you're referring to.
If it's the ODFAuthors website, I believe that's largely irrelevant to
the user guide work (in English) because that's taking place on
Alfresco.

--Jean

Hi :slight_smile:

Support != leadership
I guess that guidance could be part of a leaders role but would be better given
by the group, particularly given by people that are currently active at that
moment.  It is the person that has just completed a document and just needs
someone to proof-read it quickly that knows whether that proof-reading can be
done quickly by someone new or needs an in-depth look by someone experienced. 
There might be a nearly complete document that just needs a couple of paragraphs
sorting or something.  I guess i mean that mentorship is not something a leader
should get "bogged down in" and straight tech-support is also not a function of
leadership.

Ok, so are the groups something like;

1. Documentation Team Support/Guides/Welcome-In
2. Alfresco and tech support
3. Alfresco work-flow
4. ODFauthors Liason, work-flow, tech support

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

PS 2 names for 2 functions is smart and helps people focus.  Wearing man hats
within an org can be tricky but assigning a different name to those roles can
help sometimes i guess.  It's not normally an option with co-ops /
community-orgs so i hadn't thought about it before.