I was first attracted by lightweight and non-developer tasks that AOO has aplenty. Folks as how non-developers or inexpert-on-AOO developers can become involved. HW will be very helpful.
A heavyweight conversation is ongoing about AOO builds (and release management, lurking in the background). We can try these too, as significant collaborative tasks. The identification of that can continue at dev@ oo.a.o along with observation that HW is up and running and ready for some actual requests. Regarding sebb's earlier comment. The "How to Contribute" and related pages at openoffice.org are overdue for some dry-dock barnacle-scraping anyhow. A guide on how to use HW for AOO might also be relevant for AOO participants who have an HW they want to establish. And these tasks can surely be HW listed themselves [;<). - Dennis PS: Thanks, Jan, for identifying one more candidate for investigation. LibreOffice improvements in release engineering are certainly worthy of AOO consideration. > -----Original Message----- > From: jan iversen [mailto:jancasacon...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 05:35 > To: dev@community.apache.org > Subject: Re: Help Wanted! (it's a title, not a request!) > > > > Sent from my iPad, please excuse any misspellings > > > On 08 Feb 2016, at 14:31, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: > > > > Maybe OpenOffice should ask for an expert on multi-platform large > system build tools to consult on selecting one? > > OpenOffice actually have an expert at hand. LibreOffice (fork of > OpenOffice) has changed the build system into something quite handy > (even though still complex). > > rgds > jan i. > > > > > > >> On 2/7/2016 2:34 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > >> +1, +1, etc. > >> > >> Apache OpenOffice is overflowing with opportunities to make use of > this. > >> > >> I did not notice a way to indicate that a task has been "taken" or is > completed/withdrawn. > >> > >> (I could have missed it.) > >> > >> I assume a potential GSoC mini-project could be identified in the > title or short description, with a link to the JIRA place for further > details? The offer of mentoring could be there too. > >> > >> Each project could have their own FAQ about general necessities of > contribution how to prepare/start, by subproject area if needed, tied > into wherever the project-level widget is displayed. > >> > >> The breakdown into areas of contribution is very nice. > >> > >> - Dennis > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Daniel Gruno [mailto:humbed...@apache.org] > >>> Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2016 08:23 > >>> To: dev@community.apache.org > >>> Subject: Re: Help Wanted! (it's a title, not a request!) > >>> > >>>> On 02/07/2016 05:13 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > >>>> I like! > >>> > >>> Yay! Glad to hear this :) > >>> > >>>> > >>>> One suggestion that does not add complexity, but just a little bit > of > >>>> text. Try to quantify the Difficulty levels. Is "Journeyman" harder > or > >>>> easier than "Intermediate"? Similarly, how do "Advanced" and > "Expert" > >>>> compare? I suggest fewer Difficulty options, with a one sentence > >>>> explanation of each. > >>> > >>> I picked 5 because 3 sounded like too few (too big a jump between > >>> them?). There is an icon next to the difficulty level that shows > which > >>> 'level' it is, from green (easy) to red (very hard). Maybe I need to > >>> make that more visible?. > >>> > >>> An explanation sounds like a great idea, and we can add that as a > >>> tooltip in the widget overview and as a line of text in the actual > task > >>> details. I can get started on that right away, whereas changing to > use 3 > >>> levels might take some getting used to for me (and a bit of work to > >>> rework the existing system down to 3 levels instead of 5). > >>> > >>> Or hm, what about a small (?) next to the level which shows you what > we > >>> expect this level to signify.? > >>> > >>> With regards, > >>> Daniel. > >> [ ... ] > >>
