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

Hi David,

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 site is very
much a cooperative effort between design contributors and content
contributors, and that we need to keep Design in the loop about

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 

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:

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

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

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
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

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. 

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.