Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index


When all is said and done, only contributions will matter. Not rants.
No requests for preseances, titles,etc. Sophie hinted that it wasn't
about hierarchy, it was about information. That's true. I would add
to this: getting the job done. What job have you done?  

I can't help but noticing you've been writing a whole list of emails
trying to prove your points. Such an energy spent in yet another
discussion. I'm somewhat disappointed by this attitude, because in the
end, it gets us nowhere. 

So instead of wondering whether you should be the judge of the website
before the SC or have some sort of say over this or that, please try to
think on how you could genuinely help. Let's not be what the
francophones call "un inspecteur des travaux finis"...

Thank you,


Le Fri, 07 Jan 2011 02:17:13 -0500,
Marc Paré <> a écrit :

Le 2011-01-06 21:05, Bernhard Dippold a écrit :

Hi Bernhard, thanks for your comments and opinions. I also leave my 
opinions on this matter then, and I would not be surprised if others 
will also leave their comments as well.

Hi Mike, all,

just a few points I want to mention...
They are my personal opinion, but having been part of the OOo
community for quite a number of years, I'm quite sure that they are
shared by other people too.

Maybe some but not all people. The LibO community has grown with new 
members, which is what the LibreOffice is also all about. Some of us 
have no prior knowledge of problems with the OOo. Knowing/informed of 
prior problems with OOo is great for insight, but new people may have 
fresh ideas that they bring to the new LibreOffice group. This will
add vibrancy to the group and give it more of a "forward looking"
view of LibreOffice and its communities.

Michael Wheatland schrieb:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:40 PM, Charles-H. Schulz
<> wrote:

The admins have run this since the beginning and I don't see why
we should
host our website elsewhere. Now the website team has some people
with admin
rights and that's how it works. It's actually the usual way to
operate elsewhere. What wouldyou suggest?

I am not suggesting changing anything as long as the website team
has the autonomy and authority to modify and improve our areas of
responsibility ourselves.

The present website team consists of the people working on the
website and improving it.

Your activities have been a different main focus in the past, so it
is great to have you on board again.

When David presented his first iteration of the website, he had to
face some comments on different parts of his work. He tried to
reply to quite a number of postings here on the list, but he
couldn't see a common direction in the comments, so discussions led
to nothing than more discussions.

As we urgently need the website and most of us think it has to be
improved sooner than later, David started a new iteration of the

He asked the SC for their approval to work on the site until the
10th of January and he wanted to hand it over to the community at
this time.

Probably because there have not been an active website team, but
only a few people commenting the now active website in different
directions, he asked the SC to be the responsible group to accept
the website.

I beg to differ. There was a group of website members willing to help 
out and had their names listed on the Silverstripe team wiki page 
membership roster. Now, I can no longer seem to find the wiki page,
you only have to re-read the thread on the website discussion list
titled: "[libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS" to get a
feeling of who had volunteered/offered help with the site. Just in
case you are too busy to re-reread this voluminous thread, as I was
the one who also helped in organising the initial wiki page with the
pro/cons of the remaining contending CMS' as well as the section with
the website Silverstripe and Drupal teams (Christian had originally
started the page), you could either filter the thread on my last name
"pare" to see the development of the CMS member volunteer discussions
or I have listed the particular posts talking of offers of help here: 

As you can see there were some members who had offered their help,
some of whom, very experienced in website building. Again, I had
personally worked on a section of the site adding content. It was
only later that David asked for a larger role in order to complete
adding content. It was at this point that we all stood back and
agreed to unfettered control to David so that he could complete this
task (as agreed by the SC).

I myself was/am a little concerned that these situations should, at 
best, be avoided in the future as it does not promote to the
community aspect to the project. We may risk losing capable members
if they see their role in the LibreOffice diminished this way. A
community involvement should always be the option for all parts of
LibreOffice ... is this not what we signed up for? But OK, the SC
decided on this path which will result in the CMS of Jan. 10th.

It was simply the suggestion that the Steering Committee would be
kept in the loop before the website team that seems disrespectful
and somewhat belittles the team.

You might see it different, but there is no active website team at
the moment except the few people working on the site.

The website team didn't manage to create content for the main site
for several weeks, so we have to doubt, if there is a team at all.

I can only speak for myself on this point. We were assured that a 
working website would be available in short after the SC had decided
on a Silverstripe CMS start. I assumed, naively, that there was a
content team ready to pour content into the site. I therefore spent
time with the Drupal team. It was only later that I realised there
was no content team for the international site (English) and that the
German and French teams had in fact added sufficiently amount of
content themselves to go live! At this point I jumped in and started
helping out. Note that there had already been calls for better
guidance in the marketing confcall or at least a list of tasks to be
taken care of, but none was ever produced.

When there is no organisation, then there is no action and a loss of 
collective contribution. There has to be better organised methods
used if we are to get anywhere. Proof that organising works is the
recent movement to organise all teams with a tasks list 
( targetted to
the release(s) of LibO distro(s). We are all better equipped to work
this way. Many thanks to the person who organised this list of tasks.

We will create the team in a few days, as I'm very sure that the SC
will accept the website created by David and Ivan who supports him
at the moment.

As this new version will contain address of our concerns for the
present website, the new website team will be able to work on
improvements continuously.

I don't know if we need a formal "lead" as the LibO community tries
to avoid hierarchical structures. Decisions are based on merit
instead: People who have actively worked on a certain task have the
most important voice in decisions about this topic.

The website needs a group of people taking care of it's quality,
because this is the first and most prominent area where potential
users and contributors contact LibreOffice.

This group has to consist of specialists in webdesign, user
experience, marketing and documentation, and I'm quite sure that
you will be a relevant part of this group once you have shown your
active contribution to *this* area of work.

Perhaps then we should revisit this. There have already been
discussions on the documentation team of a documentation lead. Italo
is our defacto lead with the marketing team (we have ablsolutely no
problem with this). This seems to work quite well with these teams.
Why would there not be this kind of leadership role for the website
team? As you state, this is the "first and most prominent area" of

We will have a new active website team - let's start working after
the 10th.

Hence, the progress that David has made privately should be shared
with the website team as a whole to allow review and future
contributions from the whole team.

It will be shared after the 10th (as I already mentioned above, the
SC will not refuse Davids and Ivan's great work).

Review and future contributions will be done by the new team -
following the recommendations of the experts mentioned above.

There are many people involved in this list who are keen to
contribute. Lets get them involved.

I truly hope so, even if the past did prove the opposite...

To do that, we need to be kept up to date with the Silverstripe
site progress and encourage collaboration, delegation and

Even if David is working on a sandbox site, his progress can be
looked at, as the link to the site has already been posted here on
the list.

He's probably doing more work in the background, so the site is not
at the bleeding edge, but as he asked us to wait with comments
three more days, I don't think that this causes any problems.

(I don't repeat the link here - if you think it is important to
have a look at it *now*, you'll find it in the archives).

Here it is, in case anyone missed it: .
This is public knowledge for the website list and was given out by
David here:

If we'll have an active team from the 10th on, the future workflow
will not only concentrate on improving the content, but in
involving (new) community contributors too.

Best regards


PS: Please remember: My personal opinion only!

My opinions as well.


Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
List archive:
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


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.