Hi everyone,
Le 2012-10-07 10:58, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
Hello Christian,
I don't want to shoot the messenger but the BoD's mandate is very clear on
the purpose of the forums: users support. I'm referring to that, regardless
of any potential future extension.
Best,
Charles.
It seems like the communication has to be far clearer than what we are
doing. If there are clear lines of mandate then they need to be made
more evident. There is no point in setting up projects and then berating
the teams for doing their best at what they signed up to do.
The co-coordinators signed up in good faith and with a mandate to create
a forums for the community and for the last 10 days the proposal has
been up and we are sticking to our plan of implementation. If you are
now saying that things have changed, then no problem. I will post a
retraction on the lists and explain in your words which you should send
me -- we obviously would have then misinterpreted the mandate.
If on the other hand, you let the process complete itself to see if
there is a desire for a mailing list to try a forums option, then it
would have served a good purpose and created good discussion. Quite
frankly, it doesn't look like any mailing list is interested as there
has only been QA and Doc responses only with only 1 individual for each.
If this is all the commotion it creates on the mailing lists, then it is
very little to worry about. At this point, there will be no contributor
forums at all on the forums site, no one is interested in making the move.
As far as resources etc., if the 5 co-coordinators think it possible,
then you should have faith in the process. I am not one to sign up on
anything to waste my time, I can spend it elsewhere if it becomes a
game. We are all committed to making it work.
As for some members voicing their opinions, let us keep in mind that
these are opinions up for discussion. I was not aware that one
particular person's suggestions were a defacto decision -- such would be
an autocracy and does not lend itself well to a cooperative movement.
Let me know if I am wrong.
If you are looking for experience, well, I have been part of the tech
revival since Arpanet, Archie and Veronica etc, and have run boards on
1200 baud systems. I am more interested in the user experience, which
IMO is in need of TLC on the project. The rest of the coordinators bring
their own valuable experience to table. Opinions vary and are up for
discussion as usual.
So, if you want me to post a retraction, send me the text and I will
post in on the mailing lists.
BTW ... these are my opinions and not of the other co-coordinators.
Cheers,
Marc
--
Marc Paré
Marc@MarcPare.com
http://www.parEntreprise.com
parEntreprise.com Supports OpenDocument Formats (ODF)
parEntreprise.com Supports http://www.LibreOffice.org
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to website+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/website/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Context
- Re: [libreoffice-website] Forums Proposal (continued)
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.