Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last

On 17/05/2011 11:11, Gianluca Turconi wrote:
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
project proposals?

No, I don't think so.


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
topics below.


*About coordinators*

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.

There is already such a posting on the wiki for the easy hacks things:

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.

Yes, I think both could be handled with no difficulty

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

Yes, the most difficult for a contributor would be to understand the structure of the system, more than the syntax of the wiki

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).

/me don't like private mail :) Mailing list, to get the archive and the information available to all is better, I think

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
wiki/other means;
--> wiki has to be updated by the coordinator anyway

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 :)

Yes, it seems :)

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
process. ;)

yes, but it's very clear, you have writer skills no? ;)

BTW, I'm still puzzled from the
and 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

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* 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* + 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?

Yes, I agree about the too much complexity, I don't like it too but I can't do anything about it. You should send your proposal to the website list, may be that will open the discussion about the enhancement of the pages.

Kind regards
Founding member of The Document Foundation

Unsubscribe instructions: 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.