email@example.com wrote on 2017-07-31 at 14:25:
I have concerns regarding the communication channels we use for working
on LibreOffice. First, it seems we are sliding into a situation where
thanks for sharing your concerns. I indeed do take these very seriously,
and that topic was considered quite a lot before going that route.
My personal take on the situation is that the primary and official
channels are those on TDF premises, i.e. primarily our mailing lists,
wiki, pad and other resources to create and upload content. We have full
control over these. My personal order of preference is e-mail (it's an
asynchronous medium that everyone can use at the time and frequency they
like), sometimes chat or phone, as the latter ones can help resolving
topics easier than with lots of mails back and forth.
During the previous LibreOffice Conference, the organizers have setup a
Telegram group for the attendees. It was considered mostly an experiment
and planned to be shut down after the conference - the strong
participation rate and acceptance of it made us rethink and keep it
running. It was not a decision upfront, but turned out to be a good idea
(IMHO) over time. So, it was initialized in first place by volunteer
conference organizers, and has not been pushed by TDF's team, although
of course they are quite visible.
I agree, though, that we can get better on communication that, indeed.
There was a blog post at
that also mentions bridging to IRC, but we could have added more details.
The main reason for using all sorts of networks is that we "want to get
the people where they are". Especially for the younger generations, and
also for some native language groups, messengers and social networks
have turned out to be the most effective way. I recall at least one
community ever since using Google Plus, and another one ever since using
Facebook, considering mailing lists way too complicated and "old style".
Being a free software enthusiast, and essentially living in my e-mail
client, this doesn't make me totally happy; however, IMHO we would be
wasting lots of opportunities if we expect people to show up on mailing
lists and IRC, independent what their background is.
This is also the reason why the (few) truly free and open social tools
do not help in this regard - they are only used by those already
attracted by our project. If we want to reach out to new possible
contributors, we need to show up where they are, if we like it or not.
And looking at my contacts, very few of these use one of the truly free
tools either; one contact here, another contact there, but nothing
For me, the main rationale is to have as many content creation,
discussions and votes on official channels as possible. I'd like to
avoid a situation where decisions take place on some random network only
a few subscribe to - the primary working place is the mailing list
still, decision need to be properly communicated and shared and run on
the official channels.
I'm all open for making access easier, have a better web IRC, and also
re-investigate video conferencing systems (although I have to admit that
testing with 10-20 people is quite time-consuming, so I'd prefer a
real-life experience with such an amount, geographically distributed, on
various bandwiths). Bridging is another option, and deciding which
content to post where makes sense as well.
If you have proposals, please share them. We surely can get better, and
I'm open for any proposals.
Hope that helps!
To unsubscribe e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/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