Hi Arrigo
I like the Idea to post Tasks onto Recruitment. I will try this.
However, I try tried to give people tasks that were signing on, and it
never worked out.
Maybe I am a bad recruiter. I leave that to other peoples decision. You
can read my posts on recruitment and what I tried.
I have mostly wrote stuff like this here:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0a16093227325324ea57fb07cf8e08a7902c0f365792c14065de88ac%40%3Crecruitment.openoffice.apache.org%3E
As an answer when someone posted interest.
I have asked people to talk to me, and figure what they can do and tried
to give them a choice of Issues. Even look for more if they are not
interested.
But in the end, I could recruit no one. So I would like to change
tactics. And one thought I have is that a lot of people think that ASF
is a Company, or they do not differ between ASF and a Company.
OpenOffice is also only a product to them, and not a project.
We have mostly Issues. Crashes, out dated stuff. Boring maintenance.
There are only 2 topics for features. That is OOXML and ODF 1.3.
I try to get a concept for base together. I will make my next step on
FOSDEM, but as you see I take my time. And it will be a long time until
I suggest actual work. And Base is the simplest of all the applications
we have, because it is the "least used".
I hope you understand now more where I come from.
I am a bit astonished that no one screams on the hierarchy suggestions.
I think we do not need them and we can continue with our rather anarchic
approach with similar success.
But I think this is a completely different discussion.
All the best
Peter
On 13.01.21 11:24, Arrigo Marchiori wrote:
Hello Peter,
thank you for having raised this issue. I have some ``deeper''
questions about the philosophy of the project itself, and about its
organization. Please see below.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 09:25:14AM +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
Hello all,
I wonder if we can rename the recruitment list to something else. My theory
is that a lot of people do not understand OpenSource in general, and
recruitment is commonly strongly linked with Job offers. So have the theory
people write us with the hope on a job.
Maybe a better name would support a better understanding, on how we work or
what to expect.
Maybe something like enlistasvolunt...@openoffice.apache.org?
Or simply volunt...@openoffice.apache.org or enl...@openoffice.apache.org
My quick reply to your answer: IMHO (as a non-native English speaker)
the term "recruitment" is already good enough to describe "enlisting
as volunteering". It's very clear that everyone here is a
volunteer. Moreover, you don't have to be a recruiter to write to
recruitment@, as you do not have to be a developer to write to dev@
(as it is happening for applications to test release candidate 4.1.9)
--- Longer pilosophycal reply starts here ---
This part is about "how we work and what to expect", as you wrote.
From my very short and limited experience, I have seen quite some
enlistings: people who wrote "hello, here I am, I am good at this and
that".
But I have hardly seen anyone working as a _recruiter_, in terms of:
"we have to do X and Y. Who is available to help?"
So my question is: can we use that list for actual recruitment, in
terms of gathering people around a sub-proect? Such as "let's refactor
module X", or "let's document module Y", or whatever we think:
- would be a Good Thing for the project and
- needs a coordinated effort because it's too much for a single
volunteer.
Such coordinated efforts would need a... coordinator, with the ability
to tell volunteers "let's do X, let's not do Y". In other words, a
simple hierarchy.
I am asking this because I am not sure, from what I understood of "The
Apache Way", how much hierarchies or sub-groups are
tolerated. Moreover, the only "structured" process I have encountered
in my short experience is the preparation of a release, that involves
the full developers' community.
But from what I have seen so far, Open Office is a _huge_ project,
that carries the work of _many_ hands. It is IMHO unrealistic to
expect a real evolution of this software if we do not start working in
task-oriented groups.
If the answer is yes, that the Apache Way and the project's philosophy
have nothing against simple hierarchical working groups, then
"recruitment" is (still IMHO) a _very_ good name for the list, and we
should take full advantage of such name: _let's use it_ for hiring!
:-)
Trying to better explain my point, here is a fictional example
sub-project: translate all source code inline documentation into HTML
format. All names are fictional.
1- J. Doe sends a [PROPOSAL]; we discuss it on the dev@ list and
agree that it is a Good Thing.
2- J. Doe and F. Bar take the responsibility of coordinating it,
3- J. Doe sends a "recruitment" message to _both_ dev@ and
recruitment@ telling "let's do this; contributors welcome; we start
on Octember 36th, reply to dev@ if interested". He may also dig in
the recruitment@ archives and directly contact people who introduced
themselves in the past, may be fit for the job and may not be
subscribed to the list.
4- J. Doe, F. Bar and the other volunteers carry out the task, using
the dev@ list when necessary. If recruited volunteer B. Etor says "I
would like to do it bi-lingual: English and Klingon" then F. Bar has
the authority to say "no thanks, please let us stick to English".
I hope I could explain myself clearly. Please do not see this as
hijacking your discussion thread, as I am just trying to fully
understand the term "recruitment" and therefore the role of the
corresponding mailing list.
If this topic has already been discussed in the past (and honestly, I
would be suprised if it had not :-) please send me the pointers.
Best regards,
--
This is the Way! http://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
