Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jancasacondor@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.219.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2F0A066F-7254-4875-B1FD-70EBD4DEA02E@comcast.net>
References: 
 <CAP-ksoifhJmyr_R1-BpsWJNupZPhP+oW723rTFkqJpwiLCdjPw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5093D3E4.7010404@apache.org>
	<CAK2iWdTKWpUV7c8z95gVuB8+DCUeGxcC0iD1uLn_-TrG_YemQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<2F0A066F-7254-4875-B1FD-70EBD4DEA02E@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 22:42:57 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAK2iWdQM+7ARsqkbmXnBCBvsXm+LREP=Z_-n7xB_A_=tB3aNaw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Encouraging participation
From: jan iversen <jancasacondor@gmail.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54c4d62dd875404cd8a04b7

--bcaec54c4d62dd875404cd8a04b7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 2 November 2012 22:31, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> On Nov 2, 2012, at 2:12 PM, jan iversen wrote:
>
> > On 2 November 2012 17:54, Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 01/11/2012 Rob Weir wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:21 PM, jan iversen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> - We need to focus more on people who want to help, instead of using
> all
> >>>> the legal stuff (which are necessary) as a buffer not to move things.
> >>>> (e.g.
> >>>> I got 2 volunteers working on a danish translation, highly motivated,
> now
> >>>> we are discussing details about how to release the stuff).  ...
> >>>>
> >>> I don't think anyone is using "legal stuff' to prevent things from
> >>> moving forward.
> >>>
> >>
> >> There is a bit of confusion here. One thing is allowing volunteers to
> have
> >> feedback on their work, the other one is releasing their work. For
> feedback
> >> we needn't focus on legal issues. So the Danish translation as
> discussed in
> >> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=121179<
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121179>
> >> will be integrated in any next 3.4.x (informal, i.e., "snapshots")
> builds.
> >> The "legal stuff" is not playing any roles here.
> >>
> >>
> >> But it is certainly true that a new volunteer is encouraged the best
> >>> when they can contribute today and see their results released
> >>> tomorrow.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'd focus on "used" rather than "released": it is more motivating to see
> >> their results used (i.e., a snapshot build) soon than to see them
> released
> >> after months. And this is where we should improve. To give volunteers
> >> feedback we only need a very lightweight process, ideally zero.
> >>
> >> What is delaying us with the current translations, for example, is just
> >> that we need to determine a suitable deadline for translators to check
> in
> >> their PO files, integrating them on http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/**
> >> incubator/ooo/branches/AOO34/<
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/branches/AOO34/>and building
> snapshot for AOO34. At the moment this is indeed quite
> >> demanding on Juergen and Ariel.
> >>
> >>
> >> - I think events like ApacheCon is nice, but events like FOSDEM is
> quite a
> >>>> lot more important for the "ordinary" openSource developer.
> >>>>
> >>> And we are planning a dev room at Fosdem for that reason.
> >>>
> >>
> >> By FOSDEM (and ideally much earlier) we must be ready to integrate new
> >> volunteers in a way that fully satisfies them and the project. This is a
> >> priority for OpenOffice as a project.
> >>
> >> We are getting close to this for what concerns localization: I expect
> that
> >> in a couple weeks we will be able to involve, engage and satisfy
> >> localization volunteers with an established process. We must then do the
> >> same for QA, development, Marketing...
> >>
> >> An important result we should achieve is that nobody should feel
> >> frustrated by not having committer privileges: it is also up to us to
> >> define tasks that can be done without depending too much on a committer
> >> helping the contributor. At least we should warn them: if someone wants
> to
> >> rebuild an entire section of the OpenOffice website, like it is
> happening
> >> with Jan, he should be told in advance that this contribution is really
> >> welcome (and that, for most sections, we really need it!) but that at a
> >> certain point he might feel frustration for not being a committer. There
> >> are hundreds of tasks that can be done by non-committers, and we should
> >> keep the distinction clear when we advertise tasks for volunteers. (That
> >> said, the "privileges" of being a committer or a PMC member are greatly
> >> exaggerated at times... it's not that much really; but when this is the
> >> only obstacle to getting things really done, I can understand the
> >> impatience).
> >>
> >
> > I think I got ample warning ahead of doing the rewrite of l10n, what
> > surprised was the discussion going on right now, that is quite
> frustrating,
> > especially because I opened the theme before I did the work, and nobody
> > complained, on the contrary many said "yes please do".
> >
> > If you things like I do it can be quite frustrating not to have committer
> > status, not at all for the privilege, but because I have to waster a
> > committers valuable time, doing simple jobs.
>
> You are not wasting a committers valuable time. The committer's time is
> spent evaluating your contribution. When the committer(s) begin to feel
> that their time is beginning to be wasted that is the point they ought to
> suggest to the PMC that it is time DISCUSS giving the individual committers
> rights. This discussion occurs in private, the discussion is then followed
> by a private VOTE that lasts at least 3 days. EIther or both of these
> processes can be public on the dev list.
>

I think I formulated myself badly, there is a process for being invited to
be committer and I have NO opinion on that process, except it sounds
reasonable to me !!

The part about time waste (regarding the  l10n website), is currently a
discussion on l10n, so we should not also discuss it here.


> If the community thinks that a private DISCUSS followed by a public VOTE
> would encourage contributors then I would be for changing the policy.
> Perhaps to the following.
>
> (1) Private DISCUSS on potential new Committers lasting at least 72 hours
> until there is clear CONSENSUS.
> (2) Chair contacts the contributor to make sure they are interested and to
> let them know a VOTE is coming.
> (3) Potential Committer confirms interest to private.
> (4) VOTE is started on dev @ oo.a.o. Lasts 72 hours.
> (5) ICLA, Account creation and Karma grant occur as now.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> > So the sentence "it's not that
> > much really", is not quite correct, it can be quite time saving.
> >
> >
> >> Regards,
> >>  Andrea.
> >>
>
>

--bcaec54c4d62dd875404cd8a04b7--