Re: [native-lang] Update: Sun/NLC meeting

HI,


On Wednesday, May 4, 2005, at 3:30 PM GMT +0100, Sophie Gautier wrote:

>Hi Louis, all
>
>Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
>
>> Friends,
>> 
>> Earlier this year,[1] we held an emergency meeting whose purpose was
>> to clarify the position of the NLC leads regarding changes made to
>> OOo and to see about being included as early as possible in the
>> process deciding those changes.  It was understood by all that as
>> Sun largely determines the shape of SO/OOo (OOo being the same
>> codebase as SO), that we would have to negotiate with Sun marketing
>> directly.
>
>I'd like to recall here that this request was not only concerning
>RFEs, but also existing features that are removed or changed without
>any concertation. As a good example of our help and contributions I'd
>like to point two of them (no, no this is not the Stylist ;) among
>others :
>http://graphics.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=631
>http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=48059 related to this
>one http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=36372 (the
>feedback I had from ministries is very strong here).
>
yes, of course; thanks for the reminder :-)

[snip]

>
>About RFE's process, I completly agree with Christian's point of view.
>The way they are currently handled is a non sense and doesn't give you
>any desire to participate to the triage.

yes, I agree, too.

>> 
>> So, a couple of proposals.
>> 
>> 1. First, that we re-initiate the discussion of handling community
>> input for 3.0.  It's too early to set a date for when we should do
>> this by, but it makes sense to start thinking of it.  
>(Why is it too early?
>> Because there is no good sense even of what 3.0 will look like.) 
>
>This is not too early because with the 2.0, we are benifiting or will
>benefit from a lot of feedback from users having needs that will not
>be covered by 2.0 are no longer covered by it, so if the demand is
>strong there might be considered for 3.0 or even sooner (my thoughts
>go to the graphics module or some Calc functionalities).

I think the point was it's too early to set a date not too early to
start going through process. The problem is that it is quite unclear at
this point, too, what the options really are.  
>
>I'm sorry to insist but we also have a large users base that can
>benefit to Sun. For information, I have put a wiki in place that will
>be advertized for m100 to track those feedbacks more easily for
>external users (not those already in the community and subscribed to
>the lists).
>http://ooo.lab-project.net/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Commentaires2.0

Thanks!
And this is exactly why I wrote the email and pressed for the meeting.

[snip]


>> 
>> The second point is at best a half-way solution.  I would prefer #1,
>> of course, as it conforms with OSS ideals.  But let's be pragmatic. 
>> What is needed now is for the application in development address the
>> needs of major users, and the most major users are, i believe,
>> represented by the NLC communities.  What #2 provides is a way for
>> the many users represented by the NLC to have their voices heard.
>> It's not as democratic as #1 above, however, and should not be seen
>> as a complete solution; it is a temporary compromise. But I think we
>> should consider it.
>
>imho both are needed to have a clear, understandable and sharing view
>of what's going on for OOo. And this can solve some lack of answers
>that put us in a very unconfortable position as project leads.

Yes.

>> 
>> What to do now?
>> 
>> I'd like for the NLC leads to consider this proposal.  For number 1,
>> we--the entire project but especially the proddev team--needs to
>> devise protocols for managing RFEs, etc., and can discuss those in
>> proddev@marketing. But, please, read the archives, first. [2]
>
>But who is the proddev team ? Erwin, Bettina ? who is involved in the
>process once we have add the key 'eval_ok' and 'requirements' ? Could
>we have a clear and real representation of the process ? 

Yes. That can be discussed on proddev, I think, along with the substance
of Christian's ponts.


>Louis, I'm
>sure that some of the 3.0 features are already planed (there is some
>specs), and I can understand that Sun would keep some of them secret,
>but we have no time to waste if we don't find a way to include the
>community feedback in this planing. Proddev for me currently is not
>the way even if we were hundreds to work on it. So my proposal : -
>decisions writen in Christian's previous mail (copy/paste for memo) :
>-------< begin of copy >--------------- Sun needs to decide early what
>features it wants/considers and which one are unlikely to be
>implemented by Sun-developers.

+1

[snip]

>- a real work on specs coming from NLC (the work :) and shared with
>developers, and we have to set a workflow so that each community
>doesn't come with a request/analysis already gave by another one.

+1

>
>- a communication between Sun and NLC, under NDA if needed, when we
>ask for features or propose resources (the developer of the feature :)
>that could have commercial impact for Sun. As you see this is a mix of
>your two points :)

:-) +1

>
>Kind regards Sophie
>
Thanks
Louis
>
>