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

Hi Michael, hi all!

I think I can understand the current situation a bit - or at least it
feels like I am able to :-)

Am Mittwoch, den 26.01.2011, 04:52 +0930 schrieb Michael Wheatland:
I have asked this question before, and was not able to be pointed to
the bylaw that states that individual SC members have universal veto
Maybe you can shed some light on this.

I won't cite the bylaws, but maybe a bit "common sense" might help here.
Today, we've achieved one of our major milestones (Cheers, by the way!),
so many people will have a look on our pages ... that also means that
everybody (I hope so) wants to have them in a state, where people will
both find valuable and well presented information.

I think David cares about the "well formulated, consistent part", and
creates the content on the information available to him. This is
important, since the site partly lives from consistent appearance.
Sophie instead, has a lot of experience when it comes to community work,
localization and also the many political issues present for the local
communities those people really care about.

Concerning the latter, I doubt that most of the people here (myself
included) do have a fraction of the experience Sophie has in that
special domain. Everybody, ask yourself: how many translation cycles,
for how many releases, for how many local communities have you been able
to guide / support?

IMHO this is meant to be a collaborative process, but we do have
members such as David who have put their heart and soul into this with
some help from a small group of people with the expectation that a
review process will happen shortly.

Collaboration does also mean to listen - on both sides. And, as far as I
remember, Sophie pointed towards the issues already two weeks ago. So as
David puts his heart and soul into this, Sophie does it too. Your, and
also her mails are just stating that something is important to each of
you ... no need for citing bylaws and SC decisions (IMHO), but to care
about what the other person wants to say. Especially if it is known that
somebody has some experience and doesn't solely states a "very own
personal opinion".

Same for me, as I tried to explain the usability issues, affecting the
clarity and ease-of-use of the page, 10 days ago - now the site has
grown (thanks to David's involvement), but correcting the issues might
now need to re-factor some parts of the pages. Of course, it would be
better to spend this effort elsewhere, but in the interests of our users
and community, there is hardly a way around. Why did I refer to this
topic over and over again - because it is severe with regard to my

The reversion without discussion of any well meaning contribution in
my mind is irresponsible whilst building a community. 

Although I might stress this topic a bit, but community building
involves more than the website team. The website team depends on the
localization, as well as the localization depends on the website team -
as well as any other group. It is about balance among all these topics.

And, since (in my point-of-view) this issue isn't yet resolved - a
proposal: If David can state what was important to him, when adapting
the pages, then I'd like him to state that. Sophie and all the others
will then better understand the rationale behind the "editorial content
design". Then, we can try to bring both the content by Sophie in touch
with these style hints. What do you think?

At the end, it is about bringing correct, and well written information
to the page - as soon as possible.


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.