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

Hello Charles,

You really need to work on your communication skills (both listening to people and writing what you 
actually mean.)

I have been the subject of two of your rants, both which you retracted later.
Such cowboy behavior cannot be good for the community.

> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:26:33 +0100
> From: charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org

> Hello Michael,
>
> Le Fri, 4 Feb 2011 00:35:40 +0930,
> Michael Wheatland <michael@wheatland.com.au> a écrit :
 
> > Charles, it might be worth choosing your wording more carefully and
> > steering people toward a solution rather than dictating, just as you
> > have suggested others do.
>
> I'm not dictating, I'm merely reminding. 

Your "reminders" come across as royal edicts: Final and non-negotiable.
To the "open source"-minded people, they look tactless and arrogant.
Particularly when you have to explain them later.

And then you have to agree to our POV after understanding what we really mean.
So you end up looking clueless as well.

> > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:08 PM, charles.h.schulz
> > <charles.h.schulz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Just a reminder:
> > >
> > > We will not consider any move to another CMS, platform, etc. until
> > > at least 6 months. At that stage (in 6 months or so) we might/may
> > > perhaps *consider* (not necessarily approve) a move to a platform
> > > such as Drupal.
> > >
> > > Until that stage:
> > > 1) no discussion about Drupal on this list.
> > > 2) no "major overhaul" of the website.
> >
> > There may be people within the community who want to consider these
> > things, and they are free to do so. It's only natural for an open
> > source community.
>
> An open source community focuses on code, not on website experiments. 

Who says so? Is that in the definition of "OS community"?
Italo rightly recognizes the website as a marketing tool. It is NOT trivial as you imagine.

By its very nature people come together according to their expertise and choice.
And rather than calling them "experiments", why don't you realize that the site is nowhere nearly 
ready? 
And that is what we are talking about. 

> > BUT what we have been trying to discuss here is the development of the
> > 'about pages', so I would suggest if you wish to discuss CMS choice
> > you start another thread.
>
> I'm glad if improvements are done; and I'm cautiously warning against
> not having discussions on CMS choice. 

Did you ever see "Drupal" mentioned here? Why are you fixated with it?

I particularly object at your tactless way of putting it, under the circumstances.
I have particularly in contributed solving Silverstripe problems, if you care to read the threads.
Have I ever bashed it?

> > > What this does not mean:
> > > 1) we can't change the way some of the content is presented on the
> > > website. (see the wiki page for this) 2) we can't improve the
> > > website in minor ways. 3) we can't fix bugs.
> >
> > It is difficult to gauge your opinions here as some of the changes
> > that people are suggesting might be considered a major overhaul rather
> > than minor bug fixes.
>
> So let's call them "improvements"?  :-)

Call it whatever you like. I think it is a "yes" now, eh?

> > The changes such as further development of media rich content and
> > improved CSS for page structures falls under this major overhaul but
> > IMO 'essential' category which I am unsure of your opinion on.
> > In any case I don't think it is good to discourage this work as your
> > comments seem to.
>
> What you describe above seems to fall for sure in improvements. 

So complete reversal of stand again?

> > > Yes, there comes a time when the website is "completed" and where
> > > only incremental improvements are needed. Again: LibreOffice is not
> > > about a website nor about letting people satisfy their passion
> > > about web design, at least not primarily. We do not want a website
> > > that keeps on changing because people think their way is better. We
> > > (the SC) do not want to reopen yet another thread about these
> > > topics. The level of energy and effort spent on this topic (the
> > > website) is ridiculously high compared to what we need to to work
> > > on. We're therefore glad that there are people who want to help but
> > > there comes a point where it's not helpful, because someone's
> > > always pushing, pushing and always pushing. Same thing with respect
> > > to the website confcall: we haven't agreed on working again on
> > > overhauling the website, we haven't agreed on changing the website
> > > team, which for the sake of clarity is composed of the same 4
> > > people the SC has appointed.
> >
> >
> > "We (The SC)" do not dictate what the website team discusses. The SC
> > suggestions and the website conf call has clearly steered us towards
> > improving the site as it stands before looking for improvements in the
> > infrastructure, which is occurring. But it does not stop others from
> > investigating other options or proposing new ideas.

The last web conference call actually did NOT cover the agenda because many people could not 
connect.
We will need yet another meeting to proceed with the agenda.
So the major decisions are yet to be taken. The SC is also invited in it.
Given that, how can SC talk at cross-purposes and conclude on those topics beforehand?
 
> > I take offence to your insinuation that the only people in the website
> > team are appointed by the Steering Committee. The website team is a
> > wider group of people who work together, we do not rely on the
> > Steering Committee to tell us what to do, or appoint new members to
> > our team. There are many more people that 'the four' who I would
> > consider valuable, contributing members of the website team.
>
> Given that I have already written precisely that the four people in
> question are "community enablers" I'm not going to repeat it. 

So you reverse what you wrote in response to my post earlier?

> > Could I suggest that, like Florian and some other well respected
> > members of the Steering Committee, you allow the website team a little
> > breathing space at the moment to organically work the kinks out rather
> > than attempting to dictate what the team must or must not discuss or
> > what opinions people can express.
> > I would not like your comments result in an 'Us vs Them' relationship.
> > We are a community who should be respectful of others views and open
> > to listen to others opinions.
> >
> > Just some ideas on more careful communication :)
> > Michael Wheatland
>
> Here's what my problem is: we (all of us here) invest time and effort
> into something which in theory should not cost us that much. People
> here don't seem to get along, have twenty different agendas, and the
> very factual comment I can make is that they simply have trouble
> working together. I could say that several of them are not used to OSS
> communities, but that would perhaps sound too paternalistic or
> arrogant. The net result is that we have a website, that there is room
> for improvement (yes, this website has way too much text on it) but
> that this website has been a birth in pain and tears. 

Please understand that we are only struggling to correct that situation.
Perhaps the web team should discuss the finer details in private, but this mail list is the only 
channel.

OSS does not mean we forget the basic design principles.
Would you forgo Java coding practices/standards (or even commenting) just because it is OSS?
Would you not like to use patterns/antipatterns and refactoring?

Likewise website design is a specialized field, and too many outsiders are having strong opinions 
on that.
Unless they are educated on the subject, we would continue to have these differences.
We are trying to settle that, through a patient dialog.
But if the SC jumps in with spiked shoes, it only puts the group under wanton pressure.

Please have faith we are all mature people, and we can settle the differences on our own.
We would like the SC to take on a nurturing role.

Thank you.

-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 ***