Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last


Hello there,

2011/5/16 Sophie Gautier <gautier.sophie@gmail.com>

On 16/05/2011 15:54, Gianluca Turconi wrote:

Sophie Gautier wrote:

Yes. I'm more for a wiki than a bugzilla, unless you know one that has a
very nice interface and is not frightening for non technical
contributors.


Sincerely, I hate bugzilla. :)


it's a good tool, but only a tool dedicated to a specific usage, we
shouldn't try to use it for something else than tracking bugs life and death
;)



For non technical people it's a real barrier for contribution, IMO.


yes


However, summing up this initial brainstorming discussion:

1) a central employment-office-like web structure for TDF/LibO
volunteers *may* improve efficiency in recruiting new contributors when
maintainers and current contributors ask for help;

2) such web structure should be as easier as possible (likely a wiki)
and as visible as possible (a user must be able to choose how and what
to contribute in just few clicks), with a main division between
technical (code) and non-technical (everything else) requests for help.
Subsections may exist according to the requested skills to complete a
particular task and/or the estimated time to complete a task so that a
wannabe contributor can choose the most suitable task to which contribute.

3) in order not to overload the current maintainers that ask for help in
the centralized system, we can:
3a) appoint some volunteers (coordinators) who will work as
intermediaries between the current maintainer/contributors and the
wannabe contributors *by posting* the received requests for help into
the central system and *by confirming* the external offers or the
completion of a task;
3b) appoint some volunteers who will work like moderators do in mailing
list *by checking* (for consistency, tagging, form, and so on) the
requests for help *already directly* posted by the
maintainers/contributors into the central system.


ok and thanks for the summary


If we agree about this initial draft of the project, we may try to ask
in website@libreoffice.org if/how/where it's possible to implement this
idea and, above all, we should ask in other projects ML (all?) how much
consensus there is about this idea, because, who knows, current
contributors may prefer fragmentation (even language based one) rather
than centralization.


I'm not sure you will have feedback before having done something, see we're
only two in the conversation for now. So lets implement a first draft and a
description of the process, we may get more feedback later.


BTW, I'm still puzzled from the @libreoffice.org @documentfoundation.org
and @lists.freedesktop.org division for mailing lists. It's nearly a
nightmare for a potential contributor to understand where to write and
why. :(


We could may be reduce the gap between @freedesktop and the @libreoffice,
but @documentfoundation is necessary for the TDF related discussions. Or may
be it's not well enough documented, is that what you mean?


So, I find this to be a very good idea :-) What should be done, at this
stage? Write a proposal on the wiki? discuss it here? It obviously needs to
go somewhere :)

Best,
Charles.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to projects+help@libreoffice.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/projects/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Context


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.