RE: [libreoffice-website] Libreoffice.org website dev sitrep 2011-02-02 - [Was: Work on the "Why?" pages]

Hi David,

> From: commerce@traduction.biz
> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:32:56 +0800

> @Narayan: I understand very well your thoughts and attitudes about
> involving that talented graphic designer contact of yours. I also see
> the need to someone to work closely with us on graphics and page
> presentation. But, this is an OS project, and I don't think it can be
> achieved in quite the manner you envision.

> We have to remember that developing the libreoffice.org site is very
> much a cooperative effort between design contributors and content
> contributors, and that we need to keep Design in the loop about
> things.

First, let us differentiate between (a) the designer and (b) his designs for our project.

The designer would produce IA+wireframe+icon proposals.

The proposals are to be reviewed publicly and subject to change.

It is not a "take it or leave it" offer. 



What is wrong with that picture? 
Why do we have to get the designer approved?
After all, we are NOT screening a thousand contenders to select the lucky winner.
So why do you feel this compulsion to get the designer approved by the Design team? 

And about this "approval" per se- How appropriate is it?
How exactly will the Design team approve the designer?

You know the professional profile of my friend. 

Do we have bigger web professionals on board who can judge him?


And what has this to do with the OS model?? 
I refuse to believe that an OS project has to be run unprofessionally as a policy.
Website design is a specialized field, and even an OS project would have to follow its norms.

I have often heard about this "design" group, but-
I have not seen its leadership for the website (providing vision, setting scope of work, planning).
It failed to allocate resources to this project (e.g. graphic designer, copywriters). 
It has not given periodic creative feedback on the work done so far.

Given that, they should not at least be a hindrance when we are struggling to manage on our own. 
To be fair, I have not seen any evidence that they would block us from doing any positive work.

> One of the most difficult things in a project like this is
> communications. Even with the best will in the world, and even with
> the aid of tools like email, wikis, IM and voice chats, ideas often
> fail to pass effectively and we don't end up at a general consensus.
> Compromise and flexibility is needed from all of us. A great deal of
> contributing to an OS project like this lies in understanding and
> coming to terms with the project's sociology.

No I think the root cause is that some members lack knowledge of this field (website design).
Then they try to make it up with common sense. This results in conflicts.

When two disparate Communities of Practice come together, it is best to give space to the core 
specialists.

> Everyone wants the project to go forward - but often in different directions!
>
> There comes a time when we have to choose one path and then all
> contribute to it.

That was my point: The current design is way off course - Both in process and contents.
See this checklist and decide for yourself: 
http://www.abrook.com/website-design/website-planning-checklist/

Reality check: How much is the contribution from the design team on those topics?

> My humble proposal is this: I've played a leading role in *dragging*
> the website in one particular direction. It was something that *had*
> to be done at that time, IMHO. I'm not saying it's necessarily the
> best, but it's already 80% on the road to its destination. I suggest
> that we complete that work, so that the site is really in a final v1.0
> state.

I think all of us agree. The second phase actually builds on the first.

> Then, I suggest that we thoroughly explore all other possible options
> via confcalls, wiki writing and modeling on the pumbaa server until we
> arrive at a v2.0 SilverStripe website to offer to the SC for approval
> - something tangible, backed-up by written presentations and
> proposals.

Good idea. SC should give us a lab space. 
Like Google labs, we should have an official idea-generation and prototyping area.
 
> I know very well that the subject of Drupal is not gone from the minds
> of several of you. Therefore, I suggest that, when libreoffice.org
> v1.0 is at a finalized state, we should request the SC to request
> Christian to set-up a Drupal sandbox on the pumbaa server, in parallel
> to the SilverStripe sandbox. That way, you could thoroughly explore
> your ideas, and could experiment and model, and build properly-working
> demos that can be shown to the SC, for consideration, for whatever
> applications you imagine.

In fact, why not NOW?
The two phases can run concurrently.
And we will also work on phase-1 unreservedly.

> Personally, I'd see this as a platform for progressively developing
> things for a possible mid-term adoption - in 6 to 9 months time - if
> the results are judged to have merit and real added-value for the
> project.

Charles Schulz thinks the website is already finished, and nothing more needs to be done. (?)
That position is at complete odds with our agenda for the conference call.
We should hear from SC about their own views on the matter of website. 

Regards,
Narayan
                                          
-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to website+help@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***