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

Hi Michael, Ivan, all!

I'd like to comment, here, since I don't like the term "leaders" in the
website case. Well, there had been an official request to the SC for
dedicated editing rights to ensure stability and harmonization (and some
more ideas) of the website.

The SC came to the conclusion that it'll be helpful to look at different
aspects as well - and to ensure collaboration among the community to
provide different (I call them) contact persons instead of having all
the load on one pair of shoulders, only. So, for a trial period of two
months, a preceding proposal on the steering discuss list, had been

My fault seemed to be, that I underestimated the perceived importance of
this decision - I'm sorry for that (time was always fed up, grrr). My
aim was to draft some wiki pages (with that team), so that others know
where to start, how to cooperate, how to provide feedback (by the way,
the latter page exists since some days). And I'd like to help with the
the UX of the page, and usually I do this by commenting whether
proposals might work well. But leaders, well, this might sound a bit
bold :-)

The SC meeting minutes state "This team should act as some kind of
catalyst, guiding people by giving advice instead of taking control, so
that people are encouraged to join the website team."

If some of you missed the SC conference call recording [1], here it is.
Website topics start 23:10 mins, the discussion on how we'll understand
the team's work is at 33:50. At the end - it is about to provide a good
working, looking and helpful website.

Maybe this is one of the misunderstandings we've (all) run into - so
maybe it helps to clarify the situation a bit.

Well, I'm looking forward to the call (time seems good for me)!

Enjoy your day!




Am Donnerstag, den 20.01.2011, 13:44 +0930 schrieb Michael Wheatland:
One aspect that this entails is definition of scope and setting up
teams to
manage these resources. There has been unhappiness at the designation
leaders by the SC without any consultation with the team involved.
David and
I have discussed this at length and we see, as I hope others see, that
need more scope and definition about our responsibilities. This is not
disregard the SC statement about the leaders, but the first action of
SC assigned leaders was to unify the team, get consensus amongst the
regarding sub-projects and better define the people coordinating these

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.