Sophie Gautier wrote:
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.
OK, no problem.
So let's refine what we were discussing so far. BTW, is there already
any official or unofficial draft document that can be used for proposal
like this, so that there is a homogeneous approval/rejection process for
I think we are now agreeing that such "central system" has to be a wiki
with a simplified template for direct access of the open tasks of the
different projects. See below other thoughts of mine about different
I think, but I may be wrong, that if we force developers directly to
post their requests for help in a wiki, and "waste coding time", they
may find that central system just useless and a duplication of bugzilla.
So, I'm in favor of a more important role of the coordinators. They
should actually gather the requests *and* post them in the wiki.
That would ease the whole work process.
In fact, the current maintainers/contributors may send a simply email or
compile a web form with their requests directed to a coordinator who,
afterwards, will post them in the wiki. No further knowledge of the wiki
(sections, tags, other formalities) would be needed for the current
For wannabe contributors, the coordinators would be like the marketing
contacts: people who are /trait d'union/ between outside and inside
realities. Again, the coordinators may be contacted via email or web
form or other means.
However, I think it's important, after the first contact and for more
complex tasks (see classification below), to involve the new potential
contributor in the larger discussion (mailing lists or via private mail
with other developers/contributors).
It may build (a kind of) loyalty and not just a one time contribution.
*About the granularity of classification of the requests for help*
At the beginning of this discussion there were doubts about the
manageability of a system that includes even 1-hour tasks.
After further consideration, I agree too that it would be difficult to
manage such system.
Maybe, we need less granularity. We may classify the requests in a
broader way according their difficulty and needed time to complete:
Easy, Medium, Complex.
a) Easy: basic skills needed, shortest time involved to complete them;
b) Medium: average skills needed, average time involved to complete them;
c) Complex: high level skills needed, longest time involved to complete
So, the work flow in this central system should be:
1) a current maintainer/contributor contacts a coordinator via email/web
form/any-chosen-mean and sends a request for help, by providing at least:
1a) a detailed description of the task;
1b) needed skills (i.e. specific coding language);
1c) estimated complexity of the task;
1d) possible deadline for contribution;
2) the coordinator classify the request according the wiki
classification (Web Level 1: skills needed; Web Level 2: Complexity; Web
Level 3: list of tasks)
3) a wannabe contributor picks a task up in the wiki and gives
confirmation of such activity, via email/web form/modification of the
4) the coordinator, for more complex tasks or activities with a
deadline, contacts the maintainers/contributors and communicate that the
important/complex task has a new potential contributor. Automation of
this phase would be greatly appreciated;
5) the task is completed by the new contributor on his own or in
collaboration with core contributors, and everybody are happy :)
6) the coordinator regularly checks open, taken by new potential
contributor, tasks and verify that there has not been any mistake in
assignation or that the potential contributor has not lost interest.
I think it's harder to write it down in this email than doing it as real
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
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
How I'd like the LibO web site home page:
[short description of what LibO, the software, is]
3 huge buttons: [Download] [Find Support] [Contribute]
[short description of what TDF, the foundation, is]
Then, under [Find Support]:
[*all* support mailing list *with* @libreoffice.org suffix]
[any other external and independent support system]
Finally, under [Contribute], other 3 huge buttons:
[Contribute money] -> Fund raising
[Contribute your skills and time] -> the central employment system we're
discussing about in this discussion
[Join projects' discussion] -> *all* projects' mailing lists *with*
@libreoffice.org + other external and independent resources.
By saying the truth, of course IMO, the current web site layout is
overly complex and doesn't channels people towards what they *may* look
for. I haven't found a tool to search the website too, except advanced
Google search. Is there one?
Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza,
fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
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
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