1 |
[Responding to two different people in one posting to keep the number |
2 |
of emails down.] |
3 |
|
4 |
On Jan 20, 2008 8:56 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> a few things: |
6 |
> - fix your top posting (in other words, stop doing it) |
7 |
|
8 |
It was an entirely new topic actually. |
9 |
|
10 |
> - dont hijack existing threads |
11 |
|
12 |
Again, it was an entirely new topic. You surely noticed that it had a |
13 |
brand new subject and everything. I accidentally left a different |
14 |
quote at the bottom because I used a different email to quickly set it |
15 |
up to send to the list, but this should have been the very last thing |
16 |
for you to see anyway. |
17 |
|
18 |
> no attempt was made to summarize anything at all. the article merely linked |
19 |
> to all existing posts made by Gentoo developers. |
20 |
|
21 |
They chose to use some opinion posts from developers to summarize the |
22 |
debate, but only ended up giving one side of the story. I don't really |
23 |
know how you can say there was no attempt to summarize it, because |
24 |
clearly something was meant to be reported, or else it would not have |
25 |
made it into GMN which is itself supposed to summarize what's going on |
26 |
in the big world of Gentoo. |
27 |
|
28 |
> if no Gentoo developer made |
29 |
> a post that supported Daniel's proposal, then it isnt exactly possible to |
30 |
> link to it now is it ? |
31 |
|
32 |
Then the editor probably should have reconsidered how to deliver the |
33 |
information. Also, I sort of doubt that there aren't any gentoo |
34 |
developers at all on the other side. In any case, like I originally |
35 |
said, it's entirely possibly that it was just an unintentional |
36 |
mistake. But it still happened. |
37 |
|
38 |
> at any rate, the general opinion was reflected in the |
39 |
> aforementioned blog posts. |
40 |
|
41 |
Actually, no, the general opinion not only wasn't reflected, but it |
42 |
wasn't even talked about, which is a big part of why I was upset. The |
43 |
general opinion is that Daniel coming back would be a good thing, as |
44 |
evidenced by the overwhelming majority of people that voted in favor |
45 |
of him coming back. Perhaps among developers the percentage is |
46 |
different (it sure seems like the developers have the opposite opinion |
47 |
of the community at large), but we don't know for sure exactly how it |
48 |
breaks down. The fact of the matter is that there are two sides, and |
49 |
one side has a very clear majority of support from the general |
50 |
community, and this side was not at all represented. If you are going |
51 |
to post opinion pieces from one side, you must post opinion pieces |
52 |
from the other side. Part of being a reporter is going out and getting |
53 |
quotes to represent all sides when trying to tell the news. |
54 |
|
55 |
> taking a yes/no poll is garbage as the options |
56 |
> are garbage. you cant approach the issue that way. |
57 |
> -mike |
58 |
|
59 |
No, but it's loads better than leaving the other side out completely |
60 |
at least. The poll at least showed the feelings of the general |
61 |
community, and proved that there were two sides. I think that the poll |
62 |
would be good if it was used in a supplementary manner to other |
63 |
information, but I agree that it should not be used by itself. But I |
64 |
would not call it complete garbage at all. It says quite a bit about a |
65 |
lot of things, and I'd be worried if it was completely ignored. |
66 |
|
67 |
On Jan 20, 2008 10:50 PM, Christian Faulhammer <opfer@g.o> wrote: |
68 |
> Hi, |
69 |
|
70 |
Why hello! :D |
71 |
|
72 |
> As I wrote the Planet round-up, I will do the statement: I just |
73 |
> collected reactions of developers, it is only about Planet Gentoo. |
74 |
> Exactly one opinion is left out, because there was nothing substantial |
75 |
> in it, and that was the one of Fernando Pereda |
76 |
> <URL:http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/ferdy/2008/01/15/on_tool_boxes>, |
77 |
> which was not positive either. |
78 |
> If you point me to blog posts on Planet Gentoo that are in favour of |
79 |
> the offer, I gladly write a correction for the next issue. |
80 |
|
81 |
I think that sometimes, creating a balanced article requires the |
82 |
reporter to go out and talk to people. Clearly there is a lot of |
83 |
support for Daniel Robbins' return out there, as was evidenced by this |
84 |
very list. |
85 |
|
86 |
> The intention was NOT to write a balanced summary, but to sum-up |
87 |
> reactions, nothing more, nothing left. |
88 |
|
89 |
If the intention was to sum up reactions, then I don't think it |
90 |
succeeded. Again, it completely left out the opinion and reaction of |
91 |
the majority of the Gentoo community. There were plenty of voices |
92 |
supporting Daniel Robbins. If the piece had made an attempt to show |
93 |
the other side, then it would have summed up the reactions much, much |
94 |
better. And as an informative news publication, I think there would be |
95 |
an obligation to represent both sides in a balanced way. I don't think |
96 |
it was good for Gentoo to only show one side, and I'd be just as |
97 |
concerned if the tables were turned since these developers definitely |
98 |
deserve to be heard. |
99 |
|
100 |
Sincerely, |
101 |
Square Bottle |
102 |
www.visualflavor.org |
103 |
-- |
104 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |