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

Hi David, *,

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:33 AM, David Nelson <> wrote:

I'd like to suggest that there should be an editing team officially appointed:

An editing team is a good idea, however

- one *English NL* executive editor (with publishing/admin powers),

one is not enough, as one might be ill/on vacation, etc.

Also it doesn't quite fit in the community idea

- Charles Schulz, Florian Effenberger and Italo Vignoli as managing
editors (with publishing/admin powers).

I'd rather have more of "managing editors" - not sure whether there
needs to be a dedicate executive editor position, but rather a couple
of "managing editors"
But same as above, the list is too short, esp. as those people are
heavily involved in other areas.

To kick-start it, it might be enough, but it should quickly be
expanded to include other people who have contributed in a reasonable
fashion/have proven that they are capable of the task.

- one person from Design, Christoph Noack, with author powers, to
consult with about buttons and images. I don't otherwise see the
Design team playing much of a role in the running of the website,
beyond ensuring compliance with the graphic charter (which is
principally imposed by the theme).

-1 Especially in terms of design, artworkt, etc. you cannot have
enough contributors.

Having one peer contact: Yes, this is desireable (i.e. one who
forwards the requests of the website team and reports back the results
of the design team).
As it is hard enough to get artwork to put up on the site, you
shouldn't artificially limit the amount of possible contributors by
only having one person with "powers".

- one or two technical administrators: Christian Lohmaier and Erich
Christian (with admin powers). My suggestion would be that they do
limit themselves to *technical* administration alone, without any
interest in the content side (this is what they currently do with the
other NL sites).

This should be no problem, as at least we two have other areas to work
with as well :-)
However I surely have an interest in the content part, since the
content in the end determines what features to add to the site, etc.
Focus surely is on the technical part.

- one contributors team, principally of English NL speakers (each
member with author powers).

Yes, success or failure all depends on the contributors.

IMHO, if you organize things like this, you will have a tool that is
efficiently run and that will provide TDF with the most-effective
marketing platform.

If you allow the site to be run in a chaotic, uncontrolled manner, I
think you'll lose a lot of the benefit it could otherwise bring the

Well, I somewhat disagree here. I guess the biggest problem wrt the
english site is/was that there has not been an english native-lang
project within the OOo-project, thus there was no group like for
example in the french and german NL-projects that were already
familiar with working together on website content and familiar with
collaborating in an opensource project.

English content on the OOo website has been created by lots of
different people, none being in an "english" project, over a rather
long period of time.
The OOo website redesign was a lengthy process, but involved a lot of
people (which was a good thing). I think it is worth to get back to
that working style, although it sometimes introduces unnecessary
delays or lengthy discussions - we won't have the time pressure

In any case, may I encourage you to take some clear decisions about
this over the next few days?

+1 for having a dedicated Publisher/Reviewer group for proofreading
the submissions, dealing as contact-point for new contributors, but
-1 for limiting that group to such a small group of people, esp. you
definitely need to involve design/artwork more.


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.