[steering-discuss] Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management

Hi Florian, Christian, Charles, Christoph, :slight_smile:

I'm writing to you, in particular, as the 4 guys who *seem* to be the
primary decision-takers as regards the English main site at
libreoffice.org.

By the end of the day on January 10, my remit to work on the site will
be over. I'll be putting in a lot of time over the next days to spend
more time on the content, and to make sure that the new theme is
finished, too.

IMHO, it was quite damaging to LibO that it has taken so long to put a
site at libreoffice.org. I hope that the site will be well-managed in
the future, with some proper strategic thinking about the content.

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

- one *English NL* executive editor (with publishing/admin powers),
who vets and edits content to be published, who follows the guidelines
of Charles, Florian and Italo, and who liaises with and heads-up a
contributors team from the marketing/website teams. I'd like to
volunteer for that. But maybe there are also other better-qualified
candidates?

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

- 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).

- 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).

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

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
foundation.

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

David Nelson

Hi David, *,

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 :slight_smile:
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
foundation.

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
anymore.

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.

ciao
Christian

Hi Christian, David, all,

I'm not a SC member, but I'd like to support Christian's proposals:

Christian Lohmaier schrieb:

Hi David, *,

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

An editing team is a good idea, however

We definitely need people feeling responsible for their specific area of expertize / interest.

By using the SilverStripe features to create pages and let them be reviewed before final publishing we will be able to keep the website quality high while increasing the website team (when people have shown their dedication and skills).

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

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

+1

I think native lang contributors are important, but not necessarily the only ones to finally approve every content.

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.

I don't understand what these "managing editors" should do :frowning:

Should they decide which content is allowed to be placed on the website, while the "executive editor" takes only care of the right wording?

If so, these three people are way too heavily involved in other important tasks to be consulted with any new paragraph, news item or press release.

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.

+1

- 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.

We need a consistent theming / visual design for the website. But this doesn't mean that every image, screenshot or button has to be created or approved by Christoph.

Christoph is our most recognized UX expert, so his word is important in theming and visual structure too.

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).

Here I'd like to see two at least like you mentioned above...

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".

I don't think that David wants to reduce the number of contributors: A contact person (or two) is good in several cases, as you already stated above, but contributions should be able by all designers (I don't think they need to upload their artwork on their own - a dedicated area in the wiki would help the website authors too).

- 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 :slight_smile:
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.

I don't see any reason to restrict any contribution by anybody - especially Christian and Erich have been working on website content for years at OOo. Why shouldn't they be allowed to work here too?

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

Yes, success or failure all depends on the contributors.

And this means contributor with different mother language too. Native speakers can serve as proof-readers, as this would lower the barrier for others and reduce the work load for the native speakers.

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
foundation.

You describe two extreme positions - I think the truth lies in between:

We need a team of people feeling responsible for the different areas of work inside the website team. These people should be mentioned as contacts for their area of expertise on the wiki - I don't think that we need official roles.

In my eyes these areas (and possible candidates for contacts - didn't ask them by now if they would serve as contacts) would be:

Infrastructure
    (Christian / Erich)

WebDesign and UX
    (Ivan / Christoph)

Textual Content
    (David / NN)

I'd like to see Italo more involved in the content part, but I doubt if he would have enough time. (Same for Florian of course).

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.

+1

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
anymore.

Thanks to you, David (and Christian and Ivan), there is a website (and will be in two days) in a quality, that allows us to step back a bit and start working in a more collaborative way.

This goal would not have been reached without your tremendous work!

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

I'm not the one to make any decision, but this topic will surely be discussed on the SC call next Thursday.

Best regards

Bernhard

Hi Sophie, David, Christian, Bernhard, Italo, Charles, Michael, Olivier,
Tom, Sebastian, Drew, ... :slight_smile:

Without re-stating too many points, I'd like to say that I second the
main thoughts by Christian, Sophie, Bernhard, Italo (and some more).
Thanks for sharing those in detail; I think it greatly helps to
understand how the TDF, serving as a guide, envisions the work within
the LibreOffice community.

Since Bernhard referred to the Design Team, I'd like to comment one
item ...

[...]

Christian Lohmaier schrieb:

[...]

>
>> - 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).

Since the website grows and gets more complex, we are happy to do much
more than the "graphic charter". The Design Team is meant to offer
"Visual Design" (I think this is what you are referring to) and "User
Experience Design".

Within OOo, we've described the latter one with "Usability,
Productivity, Enjoyment". So here are some things we do with regard to
websites:
      * Analyzing "visual guidance" and "distraction" on websites (e.g.
        the current LibO site moves the attention away from the text
        towards the feeds; David, like the graphical analysis I've sent
        to you)

      * Designing "across pages" and "on page" structures to ensure good
        navigation (the following link is a "on page" proposal once made
        for OOo application descriptions)
        http://picasaweb.google.com/noack.christoph/OpenOfficeOrg#5302013710939795442
        
      * Analyzing how user interact with the website to improve it over
        time (thanks to Christian we might have / already got Piwik
        *yeah*)

... and other stuff to make the user feel comfortable when browsing the
site. At the end, we compete with other high quality commercial and
non-commercial sites (even to catch the attention of developers).

[...]

In my eyes these areas (and possible candidates for contacts - didn't
ask them by now if they would serve as contacts) would be:

Infrastructure
    (Christian / Erich)

WebDesign and UX
    (Ivan / Christoph)

Personally, I'm happy to help in any case. And, I'm sure that Ivan will
also be happy to share his experience.

Textual Content
    (David / NN)

Bernhard, I hope all the people who want to contribute to the website
(as you said, we mainly serve as contacts ...) feel comfortable with
these ideas. Personally, I'm confident that our community will provide a
great web experience.

And since I already flawed this mail with some links, maybe another
interesting reading. In 2008 there was a website refresh for
OpenOffice.org. Some description how Website Team, UX Team, Visual
Design, Native Lang, and Accessibility worked together to refine the
(most important) front page:
http://uxopenofficeorg.blogspot.com/2009/02/website-refresh-and-ux.html

And related:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Website/What%
27s_New/2008_Refresh

Thanks to you, David (and Christian and Ivan), there is a website (and
will be in two days) in a quality, that allows us to step back a bit and
start working in a more collaborative way.

This goal would not have been reached without your tremendous work!

++1 :slight_smile:

Looking forward :slight_smile:

[...]

Cheers,
Christoph

Hello all,

Since my name was mentioned, I'll jump in briefly into this discussion
with a few points that I think are important (even though this
discussion seems to have come to an end).

[... Bernhard wrote:]

In my eyes these areas (and possible candidates for contacts - didn't
ask them by now if they would serve as contacts) would be:

Infrastructure
    (Christian / Erich)

WebDesign and UX
    (Ivan / Christoph)

Personally, I'm happy to help in any case. And, I'm sure that Ivan will
also be happy to share his experience.

Certainly.

With something as multifaceted as the website (and this multifaceted
nature probably helps explain why it's become a kind of center of
contention), I think it's important to have a multidisciplinary team
that can work together on different (and, sometimes, similar) areas.

For example, user experience and design can overlap with textual
content. Sometimes, content may need to be adjusted to facilitate
design and vice versa. Also, user experience may involve ensuring that
the content meets the needs of users.

To enable people with different expertise to work together, we need
better communication channels (which could be in the form of points of
contact as Bernhard suggested above, greater use of blogs, wiki,
etc...) and decision making processes. Experience thus far has
demonstrated that organic processes don't seem to work well (at least
where time constraints are a significant factor). Therefore I look
forward to the SC making a formal decision so we can all move forward.

There is one more statement that I would like to add to this (long) discussion:

The word meritocracy seems to mean different things to different
people. As such, it would be good to have an operational definition
within the context of the LibreOffice project so that this abstract
term can become as practical as (I believe) it was intended.

For me, meritocracy requires an availability of opportunities for
others to establish merit.

With the recent groundswell of interest in the website project, it has
become clear that there are many people who are willing to participate
and make contributions. These people may not have been able to make
contributions earlier, or they may not have been aware of
possibilities to make such contributions at an earlier point in time.
I don't think that should act as a barrier at such an early stage in
the website project, especially considering that we have now had a
significant period of time where website development was considerably
isolated from the wider community.

Maybe I'm asking for too much or being too idealistic: an efficient
(things-get-done) community-based meritocracy where individuals have
opportunities to establish merit at whatever times they are willing
and able to contribute.

Regards,
Ivan.

Hi,

sorry for stepping in so late -- was on vacation until January 10th and then instantly went ill, finally back to reading through e-mail backlog.

IMHO, the raised questions in this thread have been answered during yesterday's SC call (minutes and recording will be online soon). If there are open questions to me directly, just ping me, then I have missed them. :slight_smile:

Florian