- 1 6-Sep-2007
- 2 9-Aug-2007
- 3 1-Aug-2007
- 4 27-Jul-2007 kick-off
1 pm - 2 pm
- Involvement of OOo Documentation Project
- Special guest: Frank Peters
Minutes by Stefan
What leads to this project
- problems occurred with new contributors (CH2000) who didn't find the info they needed, asking the developers and got a pointer to outdated info, asking about outdated info - the developer agrees - end of story
Michael Bemmer was involved in this incident and researched himself a bit in our information infrastructure. Doing this he got aware of the following facts: Our informational infrastructure is way too complex to be able to acquire helpful information easily. Many documents and sites are outdated, some not accessible to the whole community because posted on Sun internal media, or simply not existent.
Michael Bemmer champions this project and expect a list of "where to post what" recommendations as one of the outcomes of this project. He further expects the evaluation of internal information infrastructure (e.g.so-doc) wrt. outdated,"old", information pieces and wrt. the question if we could probably get rid of some medias in favor of less ambiguity
Why the SMEs (MH,MMP)
MH as the technical OOo guy and generalist for all kind of issues around community related issues, and MMP as highly skilled communication and UX "scientist" seem to be the perfect team for the job.
Both agreed on the charter so far, but all the three team members are aware of the fact that minor adaption to the charter may still be necessary. The team also agreed on the schedule of a weekly meeting, 12 times from now on which means immediate action.
The team talked about the following further topics:
- necessity of a rule of separation between information and communication, which I currently break with this mail :))
- project page maintenance
- doorman to guide new developers
- active acquisition
- address website problems
- information transfer internal -> external
- information restructure (site)
- presentation about communication and the responsibility of the sender
Further things I would like to mention/discuss with the Team:
As far as I see we got 4 classes of defects
- total absence of necessary information
- outdated information
- up-to-date but not open accessible information
- ( outdated and not open accessible information )
As we are not doing a Sigma Project we should start to proceed the "just-do-it" kinda things What are these? Actually as soon as you discover one of the former categorized defects take care that it'll be addressed and log it.
- When you hit an outdated page, record it in a list and take immediate action like contact the owner to fix it.
We were all not too happy with the goal statement what about this here?
Possible adjusted goal statement:
Improve the ability of community participants to access relevant information