LibreOffice Conference 2011, Personal Summary

> Hi everyone,
>
> I noticed some discussions that might relate to discussions we've had at
> the LibreOffice Conference last week. So, if you want to spend some
> minutes, then here is my personal summary:
> http://luxate.blogspot.com/2011/10/libreoffice-conference-2011-personal.html
>
> If anything is missing or unclear ... please ask :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Christoph
>
>

> Hi all,
>
> I've noticed mention in a couple of places here of the need for us to
> make it clearer how we operate.
> While I don't have a complete solution, there is an aspect that affects
> me (and I imagine, quite a few others) that I'd like to propose a simple
> solution to;
>
> Our "tasks/work items" page. It is too long, unkept and badly-sectioned
> to be useful as a tool for knowing what needs to be done.
> While I realise it isn't going to become an amazing productivity tool
> overnight, there are some small improvements that we could make to make
> it more useful.
>
> I've created a quick copy on my own wiki user-page to run past you
> before making any changes to the actual task-list.
> Please check this link;
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Nik#Proposed_rearrange_of_Design_Wo
> rk_items

> Hi Nik,
>
> Am Montag, 24. Oktober 2011, 16:41:06 schrieb Nik:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've noticed mention in a couple of places here of the need for us to
>> make it clearer how we operate.
>> While I don't have a complete solution, there is an aspect that affects
>> me (and I imagine, quite a few others) that I'd like to propose a simple
>> solution to;
>>
>> Our "tasks/work items" page. It is too long, unkept and badly-sectioned
>> to be useful as a tool for knowing what needs to be done.
>> While I realise it isn't going to become an amazing productivity tool
>> overnight, there are some small improvements that we could make to make
>> it more useful.
>>
>> I've created a quick copy on my own wiki user-page to run past you
>> before making any changes to the actual task-list.
>> Please check this link;
>> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Nik#Proposed_rearrange_of_Design_Wo
>> rk_items
>
> does that mean that nobody will work on the Design / UX of the Extensions-/Templates-
> Website anymore?

> While I don't have a complete solution, there is an aspect that affects
> me (and I imagine, quite a few others) that I'd like to propose a simple
> solution to;
>
> Our "tasks/work items" page. It is too long, unkept and badly-sectioned
> to be useful as a tool for knowing what needs to be done.
> While I realise it isn't going to become an amazing productivity tool
> overnight, there are some small improvements that we could make to make
> it more useful.
>
> I've created a quick copy on my own wiki user-page to run past you
> before making any changes to the actual task-list.
> Please check this link;
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Nik#Proposed_rearrange_of_Design_Work_items
>
>
> I would propose we;
>
> * Separate out items that are "ACTIVE", "ON-HOLD" and "COMPLETED"
> into three separate tables so that people interested in doing
> things only have to check the top table.
> * Keep the items in the tables short so that our members can more
> easily see what needs attention right now and what is going on
> that they would be interested in. Colour coding will help. More
> detailed information should just be linked to.
> * We need to have deadlines, whether we meet them or not (because we
> are all volunteers). Otherwise everything will end up as an
> incomplete task that lasts forever.
> * We need to have a client and a representative who speaks on their
> behalf. That will give us a point of reference rather than having
> endless internal communication.
> * We need to be organised and update this ourselves and move
> finished jobs out, or move jobs that are on-hold into that table.
> They shouldn't just stay in the active table.
>
>
> and most drastically;
>
> * *We should LIMIT the number of active tasks to just 3-4.* Anything
> else should not be added until something can be taken off and
> moved to the completed table. With fewer tasks, we can focus more,
> we can track them better, we can push them out faster, we can
> unify our fragmented efforts and we can be held accountable when
> we don't get things done, because it will show.
>
>
> What do you think?

> On 11.10.23 09:26, Christoph Noack wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I noticed some discussions that might relate to discussions we've had at
> > the LibreOffice Conference last week. So, if you want to spend some
> > minutes, then here is my personal summary:
> > http://luxate.blogspot.com/2011/10/libreoffice-conference-2011-personal.html
> >
> > If anything is missing or unclear ... please ask :-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Christoph
> >
> >
>
>

>>>
>>> I've created a quick copy on my own wiki user-page to run past you
>>> before making any changes to the actual task-list.
>>> Please check this link;
>>> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Nik#Proposed_rearrange_of_Design_Wo 
>>>
>>> rk_items
>>
>> does that mean that nobody will work on the Design / UX of the
>> Extensions-/Templates-
>> Website anymore?
>
> I don't think that it is meant so by Nik. For me it is only a proposal
> with some examples. The lists must be filled in.
> IMHO the idea behind the proposal is to show clearlier where we stand
> and where to take the most power.
>

> Back to your proposal - would it help to change the objective of the
> tasks list? My take ... a rough proposal:
>        * Larger task will (should) automatically require a Whiteboard
>          page. The whiteboards overview page might benefit from your
>          proposed structure.
>        * Smaller tasks that new contributors (with varying skills) might
>          take, should go to a separate section like EasyTasks /
>          StarterTasks. A similar structure to the task list (which still
>          keeps the fun) is required here.
>        * All other tasks that are less urgent, nobody takes care of
>          quickly  should go to an "Open Tasks" list. Just to not forget
>          them ...
>        * Bugzilla and libreoffice-ux-advise should stay as they are.
>
> What do you think?

>> and most drastically;
>>
>>      * *We should LIMIT the number of active tasks to just 3-4.*
> Mmh, I really like that for my own stuff ... when looking back at the
> last weeks, my work might have appeared a bit unfocused. (Which it
> wasn't, of course *g*). However, can we really limit the number of tasks
> for if people are free to chose where to spend effort?
>
> If we can agree that "active tasks" means something like "Tasks in
> Focus", then I'm fine.

>
> Hi Nik, all!
>
> Hey, thanks for going forward ... :-)
>
> Am Dienstag, den 25.10.2011, 01:41 +1100 schrieb Nik:
> [...]
>> >  I've created a quick copy on my own wiki user-page to run past you
>> >  before making any changes to the actual task-list.
>> >  Please check this link;
>> >  http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Nik#Proposed_rearrange_of_Design_Work_items

>> >  and most drastically;
>> >  
>> >       * *We should LIMIT the number of active tasks to just 3-4.* Anything
>> >         else should not be added until something can be taken off and
>> >         moved to the completed table. With fewer tasks, we can focus more,
>> >         we can track them better, we can push them out faster, we can
>> >         unify our fragmented efforts and we can be held accountable when
>> >         we don't get things done, because it will show.
>    Color coding means that somebody has to decide on the priority ...
> that's something I'm unsure within a community (from experience, most
> people pick the tasks they do like ... whether these are important or
> not). On the other hand, I would assign a "high priority" to the
> Download Page realization :-)
> Mmh, I really like that for my own stuff ... when looking back at the
> last weeks, my work might have appeared a bit unfocused. (Which it
> wasn't, of course*g*). However, can we really limit the number of tasks
> for if people are free to chose where to spend effort?
>
> If we can agree that "active tasks" means something like "Tasks in
> Focus", then I'm fine.

> *Klaus-jürgen mentioned;*
> 1. Who will determine the priorities?  I think mostly our lead(s).
> 2. Who will determine where to put an item (active - on-hold)?
> 3. As I understand your proposal, the items will be more different than
> the work-item-list [1]. Will you/we make a list to collect the different
> items before 1st of november?
> 4. The status "On hold" won't be necessary because then it will be in
> the "ON-HOLD" list
> 5. The status "Being finalised" won't be necessary because then it will
> be in the "completed archive" list or you must have a coloumn "Status"
> in this list, too.
> 6. What is the difference between "In proposal" an "In progress"? Maybe
> this should be described.
> 7. What will happen, if someone tells that he wants to work on a
> "ON-HOLD" item, but the list of active items is 'full' and the others
> don't think it is extremly neceassary to work on it? We won't prevent
> him to work on it. Example: Aleksander made some (great) design
> proposals "out of time".
> 8. Maybe this example can be a extra list: "GENERAL items" with no
> priority.
> 9. I'm not sure if we shouldn't colour the "On-HOLD" list, too
>
> *My suggestions regarding these very pertinent questions;*
> 1. When added, the member adding should assign a priority of discussed
> on this mailing list and then put there initials in brackets alongside
> the number, eg: 3(NS). The Team leads will review this priority when
> they get a chance and their reviewed ranking shoulod just be accepted to
> keep things going. SC members who frequent this list (Charles, Italo)
> would also be able to review priorities. Our Mailing list should not
> become endless discussions and contradictions of our priorities, that is
> why we appointed Team Leads.

> > So, where do we currently work on tasks and have some task management?
> >        * http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design#Work_Items
> >        * http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Whiteboards (already
> >          having a simple Recent Topics / Past Topics section)
> >        * Bugzilla (usually smaller tasks)
> >        * libreoffice-ux-advise (usually smaller tasks, if bigger, then
> >          moved to a Whiteboard)
>
> Almost everything should remain functioning like it does now, but
> detailed info should move to Whiteboards and the Work items page should
> serve as a short linked index to all our tasks. Something to look over
> quickly.

> > Back to your proposal - would it help to change the objective of the
> > tasks list? My take ... a rough proposal:
> >        * Larger task will (should) automatically require a Whiteboard
> >          page. The whiteboards overview page might benefit from your
> >          proposed structure.
> >        * Smaller tasks that new contributors (with varying skills) might
> >          take, should go to a separate section like EasyTasks /
> >          StarterTasks. A similar structure to the task list (which still
> >          keeps the fun) is required here.
> >        * All other tasks that are less urgent, nobody takes care of
> >          quickly  should go to an "Open Tasks" list. Just to not forget
> >          them ...
> >        * Bugzilla and libreoffice-ux-advise should stay as they are.
> >
> > What do you think?
> Larger tasks: listed on Work-items page with a link to its Whiteboard page.
> Smaller tasks: Leave them on this mailing list, we should try to keep
> the work-items focused.

> I do not want the Work-items page tables to be about "types/categories"
> of tasks, I want them to be about the "stage/lifecycle" of that task.
> Just active, suspended or done. That's all that matters if we are trying
> to keep it simple.
>
> >
> > Color coding means that somebody has to decide on the priority ...
> >
> Yep. You! Or Bernhard.
> Generally a member can do this and you can review the prioritisation.
> We shouldnt' get tripped up over this. We elected you both because we
> trust you and this is an example.
> When you get the chance review the priorities, otherwise they will be
> worked out on-list with little discussion hopefully.
> Less talk, more "DO".
> =)

> >>      * We need to have deadlines,
> > Yep, if we agree that these should guide but hurt (in terms of
> > deadlines).
>
> I think they should hurt us if we don't meet them. This is about
> establishing Design as a team that delivers and can be counted on. Even
> if nobody else tracks this, we should. My proposal: every day that a
> project/task runs over schedule should be counted and displayed on our
> Design wiki "home" page. A bad (high) number will hopefully urge us to
> get it done to salvage our worth as a part of this community. A good
> (low) number can be a source of pride amongst ourselves that we deliver
> when people need us. It will be our performance indicator.

> >>      * We need to have a client and a representative who speaks on their
> >>        behalf.
> > Yep. At least someone will send the request ...
> >
> > However, I think another helpful thing would be to provide information
> > that tells what we need if someone requests a certain item (I've
> > collected some ideas for visual design elements, but did not send them
> > to the list / wiki yet ... maybe the next task).
> agreed, the requirements should be specific and in the examples, I've
> demonstrated that every requirement should be a deliverable and
> measurable item. Something identifiable as a satisfactory outcome or not.
> >>      * We need to be organised and update this ourselves
> > True, but this will need help by everybody ... which I currently miss a
> > lot. We have many people on this list, but only veeery few who are
> > active (whatever small or larger task it may be).
> Any volunteers to help with this? we have 150 suibscribers.
> Someone might be interested in helping whip us into shape?

> >> and most drastically;
> >>
> >>      * *We should LIMIT the number of active tasks to just 3-4.*
> > Mmh, I really like that for my own stuff ... when looking back at the
> > last weeks, my work might have appeared a bit unfocused. (Which it
> > wasn't, of course *g*). However, can we really limit the number of tasks
> > for if people are free to chose where to spend effort?
> >
> > If we can agree that "active tasks" means something like "Tasks in
> > Focus", then I'm fine.
>
> We need to start taking this seriously. We can only get so much done in
> the time we have.
> That means to need to start prioritising HARSHLY!
> We need to be realistic and we need to push back if we can't do it.
> Otherwise we will let everything be added as a task and nothing finished.
> It works in COUNTLESS methodologies.

> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >>
> > Well, maybe more input that you've expected ... you should surely read
> > it as "being happy that you kicked that off" :-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Christoph
>
> Sorry if any of that sounded harsh. I'm on wireless, battery is dying
> and this needed to be sent.
> Let's get active!

> Hi Nik,
>
> before you'll never get a reply from my side ... :-)
>
> Am Dienstag, den 25.10.2011, 14:52 +1100 schrieb Nik:
> > Hi Christoph, Klaus-jürgen, All,
> >
> > Thank you both for your input, you thought of a number of things I
> > didn't. I'm going to try condense your questions and provide short(ish)
> > responses so that this thread does not become large and
> difficult-to-follow;
>
> Cool, thanks!
>
> > *Klaus-jürgen mentioned;*
> > 1. Who will determine the priorities?  I think mostly our lead(s).
> > 2. Who will determine where to put an item (active - on-hold)?
> > 3. As I understand your proposal, the items will be more different than
> > the work-item-list [1]. Will you/we make a list to collect the different
> > items before 1st of november?
> > 4. The status "On hold" won't be necessary because then it will be in
> > the "ON-HOLD" list
> > 5. The status "Being finalised" won't be necessary because then it will
> > be in the "completed archive" list or you must have a coloumn "Status"
> > in this list, too.
> > 6. What is the difference between "In proposal" an "In progress"? Maybe
> > this should be described.
> > 7. What will happen, if someone tells that he wants to work on a
> > "ON-HOLD" item, but the list of active items is 'full' and the others
> > don't think it is extremly neceassary to work on it? We won't prevent
> > him to work on it. Example: Aleksander made some (great) design
> > proposals "out of time".
> > 8. Maybe this example can be a extra list: "GENERAL items" with no
> > priority.
> > 9. I'm not sure if we shouldn't colour the "On-HOLD" list, too
> >
> > *My suggestions regarding these very pertinent questions;*
> > 1. When added, the member adding should assign a priority of discussed
> > on this mailing list and then put there initials in brackets alongside
> > the number, eg: 3(NS). The Team leads will review this priority when
> > they get a chance and their reviewed ranking shoulod just be accepted to
> > keep things going. SC members who frequent this list (Charles, Italo)
> > would also be able to review priorities. Our Mailing list should not
> > become endless discussions and contradictions of our priorities, that is
> > why we appointed Team Leads.
>
> Fine.
>
> > 2. Same as above, with every person making a decision adding their
> > initials alongside.
>
> Fine as well.
>
> > 3. That is a good point I hadn't considered. Can someone help me
> > establish the current status and contacts for each of the existing
> > tasks. (just add it to the bottom of the current wiki task list page to
> > avoid complicating this thread).
>
> I can help you, but I'm offline from tomorrow/Saturday until Wednesday.
>
> > 4. Good point. But I kept the "on-hold" status to make it easier to
> > cut-and-paste a record easily between the ACTIVE tasks and the ON-HOLD
> > tasks. Ths way less editing is required.
>
> Sure. From experience I'd say these are small things that can be tweaked
> afterwards ... I've refined the Agenda and Minutes for the OOo Community
> Council several times - so no worries.
>
> > 5. I think we need a "Being finalised" to indicate work is complete on
> > the task, but we need to wrap things up (like providing a graphic in
> > another format, or waiting on word from the printers etc). It will also
> > give us a final "push" to finish the job.
>
> Fine, although this might be optional ... if we start to have such a
> fine grained tracking, a percentage value might be more helpful
> (although project management experience tells us that 80% of the time
> tasks reside between 95 ... 99%) ;-)
>
> Thinking of that, I suggest to have a "last update" information. That
> really helps to find orphans / clean up stuff that lies there for too
> long. Having that in a separate columns makes this even sortable.
>
> > 6. In proposal means that requirements for the task are still being
> > established, while a task In-progress already has requirements defined
> > and is currently being worked on or available to be worked on.
>
> Mmh ... I think we should simply say that its in progress. Although I
> love processes (and thus the separation of requirements collection vs.
> solution creation), I think such fine grained status might be added to
> the proposal itself (if required).
>
> > 7. Being realistic I think we all know we can't "force" everyone to play
> > the same game. We shouldn't. When additonal "out of time" contributions
> > are made, we should accept them and move on to what is required. The
> > task list on the Work-items page should be to provide focus for the
> > regular contributors to this team. It should give direction and make the
> > "endorsed" work items clear to anyone wanting to help in our everyday
> > operations. Right now, that is not so clear.
>
> Okay, the "should provide focus (=guidance) for the regular contributor"
> is okay to me.
>
> > 8. If we define such a generic list, I'm afraid everything will be
> > stored there, we will relax our focus on delivering results. We should
> > instead be more rigid: A task is either a) being worked on b)suspended
> > due to external influences or c)complete. No lee-way.
>
> Sounds fun ;-)
>
> Just a question - what about new items that don't need to be active,
> where do these get added. To the On-Hold list, status "in proposal"?
> (Sorry if I missed that ...)
>
> > 9. I'm not opposed to that, but I'd prefer if the only colours on the
> > page were alongside things that can be worked on.
> >
> > And Christoph I'm going to snip alot of your Email to so I can keep my
> > responses just as "snappy";
> >
> >
> > On 11.10.25 08:10, Christoph Noack wrote:
> [...]
> > > So, where do we currently work on tasks and have some task management?
> > >        * http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design#Work_Items
> > >        * http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Whiteboards(already
> > >          having a simple Recent Topics / Past Topics section)
> > >        * Bugzilla (usually smaller tasks)
> > >        * libreoffice-ux-advise (usually smaller tasks, if bigger, then
> > >          moved to a Whiteboard)
> >
> > Almost everything should remain functioning like it does now, but
> > detailed info should move to Whiteboards and the Work items page should
> > serve as a short linked index to all our tasks. Something to look over
> > quickly.
>
> Personally, I'd like to avoid doubled statuses (e.g. Whiteboard page and
> tasks page). Then it gets a bit tricky ... I already work on two or
> three Whiteboard tasks that might be less relevant to others. So to me
> its active ... How would that look like on the Tasks list, if we only
> have 4 active items?
>
> > > Back to your proposal - would it help to change the objective of the
> > > tasks list? My take ... a rough proposal:
> > >        * Larger task will (should) automatically require a Whiteboard
> > >          page. The whiteboards overview page might benefit from your
> > >          proposed structure.
> > >        * Smaller tasks that new contributors (with varying skills)
> might
> > >          take, should go to a separate section like EasyTasks /
> > >          StarterTasks. A similar structure to the task list (which
> still
> > >          keeps the fun) is required here.
> > >        * All other tasks that are less urgent, nobody takes care of
> > >          quickly  should go to an "Open Tasks" list. Just to not forget
> > >          them ...
> > >        * Bugzilla and libreoffice-ux-advise should stay as they are.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > Larger tasks: listed on Work-items page with a link to its Whiteboard
> page.
> > Smaller tasks: Leave them on this mailing list, we should try to keep
> > the work-items focused.
> +1
>
> > I do not want the Work-items page tables to be about "types/categories"
> > of tasks, I want them to be about the "stage/lifecycle" of that task.
> > Just active, suspended or done. That's all that matters if we are trying
> > to keep it simple.
> >
> > >
> > > Color coding means that somebody has to decide on the priority ...
> > >
> > Yep. You! Or Bernhard.
> > Generally a member can do this and you can review the prioritisation.
> > We shouldnt' get tripped up over this. We elected you both because we
> > trust you and this is an example.
> > When you get the chance review the priorities, otherwise they will be
> > worked out on-list with little discussion hopefully.
> > Less talk, more "DO".
> > =)
>
> Hehe, hope that will work fine for everybody ...
>
>
> > >>      * We need to have deadlines,
> > > Yep, if we agree that these should guide but hurt (in terms of
> > > deadlines).
> >
> > I think they should hurt us if we don't meet them. This is about
> > establishing Design as a team that delivers and can be counted on. Even
> > if nobody else tracks this, we should. My proposal: every day that a
> > project/task runs over schedule should be counted and displayed on our
> > Design wiki "home" page. A bad (high) number will hopefully urge us to
> > get it done to salvage our worth as a part of this community. A good
> > (low) number can be a source of pride amongst ourselves that we deliver
> > when people need us. It will be our performance indicator.
>
> Here, I object ... the deadlines should help us to coordinate the work
> in advance. But as long as few people actively contribute its hard to
> balance many of the tasks. And since "normal life" sometimes happens,
> nothing should hurt.
>
>
> > >>      * We need to have a client and a representative who speaks on
> their
> > >>        behalf.
> > > Yep. At least someone will send the request ...
> > >
> > > However, I think another helpful thing would be to provide information
> > > that tells what we need if someone requests a certain item (I've
> > > collected some ideas for visual design elements, but did not send them
> > > to the list / wiki yet ... maybe the next task).
> > agreed, the requirements should be specific and in the examples, I've
> > demonstrated that every requirement should be a deliverable and
> > measurable item. Something identifiable as a satisfactory outcome or not.
> > >>      * We need to be organised and update this ourselves
> > > True, but this will need help by everybody ... which I currently miss a
> > > lot. We have many people on this list, but only veeery few who are
> > > active (whatever small or larger task it may be).
> > Any volunteers to help with this? we have 150 suibscribers.
> > Someone might be interested in helping whip us into shape?
>
> <insert_contributor_name_here>
>
> > >> and most drastically;
> > >>
> > >>      * *We should LIMIT the number of active tasks to just 3-4.*
> > > Mmh, I really like that for my own stuff ... when looking back at the
> > > last weeks, my work might have appeared a bit unfocused. (Which it
> > > wasn't, of course *g*). However, can we really limit the number of
> tasks
> > > for if people are free to chose where to spend effort?
> > >
> > > If we can agree that "active tasks" means something like "Tasks in
> > > Focus", then I'm fine.
> >
> > We need to start taking this seriously. We can only get so much done in
> > the time we have.
> > That means to need to start prioritising HARSHLY!
> > We need to be realistic and we need to push back if we can't do it.
> > Otherwise we will let everything be added as a task and nothing finished.
> > It works in COUNTLESS methodologies.
>
> Fine, but let's be a bit flexible and allow some change in priorities if
> that's required due to external circumstances.
>
>
> > >> What do you think?
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Well, maybe more input that you've expected ... you should surely read
> > > it as "being happy that you kicked that off" :-)
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Christoph
> >
> > Sorry if any of that sounded harsh. I'm on wireless, battery is dying
> > and this needed to be sent.
> > Let's get active!
>
> Thanks for that - really, really, appreciated :-)
>
> I'm not on wireless, the laptop's battery is fine, but I'm running out
> of energy. So, good night everyone!
>
> Cheers,
> Christoph
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
> Problems?
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted
>

> Hi all,
>
> ...
>
> On 11.10.30 22:54, klaus-jürgen weghorn ol wrote:
>> Hi Nik, Christoph, *,
>>
>> I have started now such a list of collection [1]. Work on it, put
>> things to the list, delete it. Mention also on our Whiteboards [2].
>>
>> [1] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/work_items_collection
>> [2] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Whiteboards
>>
>
> Thanks for all the feedback so far. While I said I would act on this
> today, with Bernhard's announcement, it doesn't feel right to jump
> straight in and carry out "business as usual" for me. I have
> everything I need to proceed, but I'm just going to leave this for a
> week, as a sign of respect. My "2 minutes of silence", if you will.
>
> -Nik