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

sophie wrote:
On 15/05/2011 11:44, Gianluca Turconi wrote:
Hi Sophie,

sophie wrote:
the system could be a bug tracker with a less technical UI than BZ, but
I think a wiki with a good template could be enough. Why do you say

Because you have to navigate *a lot* through the currently on line wiki before finding the info a contributor may need in order to contribute. Too many clicks, IMO.
Yes, on the current wiki, I agree, even if the template helps a lot, but the scope is too large to have the few click you want.

A easier wiki template may do the trick, but it should be bare to the bone, because it's just a matter of going directly to the point: contributing according to one's skills and available time.

If I have, let's say, 1 free hour to contribute, I should be able to find fast whatever task I can complete in such an hour. If I have 1 free day, I should be able to find fast whatever task has a 1 day estimated time for its completion.

However, it's absolutely important that no potential contributor's time is wasted in *finding how to contribute". You know, time is money. ;-)

This statement is true both for the core contributor and the casual or potential one.
agreed too and even it will take some management time, better lose it here than the contributor one.

If the project would have such a central system for the management of the contributions, I think there would be a more efficient work flow too, because *everybody* would know who is in charge for a task, what progress has been made and what is still missing.
The only difficulty I see here is the amount of tasks that will have to be listed and may be that will blur a bit the vision of the overall workflow. The level of detail is rather high if you list contributions for 1 hour of work or so.

It may be useful to track contribution too, for future TDF applications and reviews of such applications. Everything would be (sufficiently) public.
yes, even if we have good ways to monitor what is already done, in that area, the more the better.

So now, you've find what to do for your next free hours ;-)

Kind regards
It seems to me that a simple structure of choices is what is called for, first basic types of contributions, code, artwork, advertising and promotion, distribution of burned disks, technical contribution not requiring a knowledge of coding. Then when you have entered the area where you could contribute, there would be a division of task sizes, like the 1 hour or less, 1/2 day or less, one day or less, 2 days or less, 1 week or less and so forth that was described here earlier. then finally a listing of the specific tasks. there might also need to be a division based on skill levels or particular basic skills, particularly under the category of coding.

I for instance would like to contribute to improving the word list for the spell check program in Writer. I suspect that this would require the help of someone who could tell me how to find and extract a copy of my personal dictionary. I suspect that there may be many such technical but non coding tasks where the contributer may need to team up with someone who can advise them on the more technical aspects of the task at hand.

I have been a subscriber to the OOo Discuss list since 2001, and remember well the days when there was far more activity on that list. I have noticed that list fading much more rapidly since the TDF/LO fork. So now I am here and willing to help however I can.
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.