Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 29, 2014, at 6:44 AM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On 27/03/2014 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/27/14 1:59 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>>> >>>> Is there interest for a "live" (meaning: IRC + video, like Google >>>> Hangouts or similar) meeting to make sure that we (developers, QA, >>>> Localization, Documentation, website...) are all on the same page >>>> regarding the upcoming 4.1 release? >>> >>> we can try such a meeting but I don't see the benefit compared to a >>> clear communication on the mailing list (can be of course improved). >> >> >> The benefit would be: make sure that active volunteers have a chance to be >> heard and to influence the release. We are doing good now; still, we can do >> better. See below for concrete examples. >> >> >>> Either we do it in a more organized way and define exactly what we >>> expect or I am not interested. >> >> >> I am not interested in the other option. Well, maybe I misunderstood what >> you mean by "organized", but for sure I would find it overkill that we have >> to vote for someone to be in a call to represent a certain group (say, QA) >> and vote on what the call topics should be. It's an informal meeting. >> >>>> It wouldn't be a meeting where things are decided (we have the lists for >>>> that!), but merely a meeting where people can inform each other to make >>>> sure that all priorities are being addressed ... >>> >>> I am in favor of having such discussion mainly on the list to have it >>> documented. >> >> >> Note that it's more about being informed (about stuff that is already >> somewhere on the lists), and discussion can follow on lists. >> >> Maybe it helps if I make a concrete past example: the "Restore windows" >> problem https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119006 has been known >> for two years. It only triggered on certain versions of Mac OS X and only >> after a crash. Still it caused 500+ e-mails, and probably countless forum >> posts and some enraged/lost users. In retrospect, we should have evaluated >> it better. >> >> How can we avoid the next "Restore windows", i.e., something that is known, >> important to someone, already documented somewhere but that would deserve >> better attention? It's important for OpenOffice as a project that active >> volunteers feel that they can influence the release. And it is also very >> good for OpenOffice as a product. >> >> Now, the obvious answer is "Just place it in Bugzilla and nominate it as a >> release blocker". This doesn't always work. For a release blocker, for >> example, you would require in most cases that a patch is available, and a >> description that is purely technical can miss to state why it is important >> to get it fixed before release. And if you look at who is nominating >> blockers, you'll see that only a few people do that. >> >> The IRC+video meeting is the best solution I can find, but anything else >> that guarantees proper escalation would work for me. Just, asking people to >> simply follow the process is too demanding on volunteers and we need to >> streamline it (another concrete example? we don't have 4.0 in Danish mainly >> due to bad communication, since translation was completed before the 4.0 >> release but after the deadlines). >> >> If you want yet another example... we already know that OpenOffice 4.1 is >> going to have display problems for Gnome 3 users on Linux. Two bugs have >> clearly been identified: no refresh on fields >> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124482 and no scrollbars >> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121627 ; the former has a >> working patch by Andre and I'll nominate it as a blocker, but what about the >> latter? Does it make sense to nominate it even if we don't have a fix >> available? Will a meeting where active people can report on what they see on >> the forums, lists etc help in making the assessment? > > We can always have a Hangout on our Google+ page. But I think that is > limited to 10 people and ties us to a specific time, making it more or > less convenient to people depending on their timezone. So I'm not > sure it is much more inclusive. > > But you could make the argument that it is a best practice with Agile > methodology for us to have "daily scrum" meeting to check in and > review blockers. But that could also be done via the mailing list, > with a new thread each day, e.g., "2014-03-29 Daily Scrum". As I read the other emails I was thinking that a bug scrub would be good. This would allow a group to discuss bugs and issues. The goal would be a priority list which could then be shared on list, debated. We can then commit ( agile term). Daily scrum then tracks the progress towards the goal. The scrum master records the info. Scrum master can change from day to day. It is clerical. Regards, Dave > > In any case, if a PMC member wants to take the lead on a hangout, and > does not already have access to our Google+ page, let me know and I > can give you manager access. > > -Rob > > >> Regards, >> Andrea. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
