Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index


On 12/16/2010 2:40 PM, Johannes A. Bodwing wrote:
Hello,
On 12/16/2010 3:45 AM, Cor Nouws wrote:
Benjamin Horst wrote (14-12-10 16:21)

I agree with you about the possible negative connotations of the term
"manager," but I think it's just a terminology problem. You could
think of the role as "Community Facilitator" or even "host" if you
prefer. The actual tasks inherent to the role are similar to the host
of a party--introducing people to others with similar interests,
helping to coordinate times, places and necessities, etc.

In practice, it's hugely helpful to have someone walking around to
make sure that good ideas don't get lost and plans receive
encouragement and assistance until they are completed. They can also
play the role of matchmaker, to help find volunteers for important
initiatives that don't have enough helpers.

I also understand the desire to form a clean break from the past and
to build our own thing this time. I think it's the right approach,
but I don't think it means we can eliminate the role of the community
manager, though renaming it to better suit our project's culture
certainly makes sense.

+1
Very well said, IMO.
A good manager serves the community. A manager is not a commander.
Being a good manager is a time-consuming task. It involves knowing what is going on, understanding the 'how-to's' of many community members, and finding a balance between letting flow, and linking actively, proposing, intervening etc.
I am sure our bye-laws provide us with some officers, of which I expect one to do this job.

Regards,
Cor

I agree -- and to avoid the negative implications of "manager" how about calling this valuable person the Community Coordinator?

What's the construction we talk about?
If we install someone like a community coordinator, than the term says he/she coordinates the community. What than does TDF or the steering committee?

I think Benjamin covered this coordination role well. I see the SC (which I think is part of TDF) as a policy setting group, not a day-to-day operations one.

Their mission is to evolve the OpenOffice.org-Community into a new open ... and so on.
I think we have not enough clearness about the things TDF/LO consists of. There is in a rough form:
a Community - a Product (LO)
the Community is build of developers, users, sponsors, contributors and so on
the Product is at the moment the sequel of OOo; later on it could be additional software too in the kind of open-source
the Community as a whole works to offer the software to the public.
and that all should "work" with a global dimension as well as with national or local basis.

I propose to think it from the core. And that is at the moment:
We construct an organisation (TDF) to develop and contribute a software-product (LO).
Or a little bit harder: We build a kind of MS in an open and non-profit-oriented form ;-)

Not MS (with OS, office suite, etc.) -- MS Office Pro is closest, but not directly comparable.

Than the elementary question is: How has a structure to be to fulfill our goals in the best way it could be done? Also this structure has to include the "tools" to reach as many people as possible (for development, testing, marketing, sponsoring and so on).

With this aspects we have to proof the current form of TDF, trim it to a better level, proof the goals, check the construction, trim it and so on. For that we need an adequate exchange of information. For example the best configuration of mailing-lists, collaborative working, and others more. Because nearly all of this has a global basis and a national one, regional or local, the relevant information has finally to spread to every member of the community. Also every (good) idea of a member has to reach the national or global basis.

Very true!


And now another important question: Should we begin right now - or should we wait till the final release of LO?
Because many people are in the preparation of this release.
Otherwise the clock is ticking and some people dont develop, test and so on. They could work on a (rough) sketch of the fundamental aspects of the TDF-structure, to bring it forward as fast as possible.

We'll definitely have to have a fairly well-defined support plan as soon as LibO is generally released. This will have to take account of the transition to Drupal, too, since many of the operations will apparently change significantly between Silverstripe and Drupal -- especially in terms of direct user support capabilities. We don't want to confuse everybody, but the currently available support mechanisms (mailing lists and documentation in particular) are different both from OOo and from the future plans.


At last back to the "Community Coordinator". This function we have install on the best position inside the best construction of TDF we could make. Eventually in the beginning like a joker without a determined position.

I think this is a product-focused position (LibO) and not an organization-focused one (TDF). One of the many kinds of questions being raised here....


Regards,
Johannes



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Context


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.