1 |
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 03:28 +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: |
2 |
> I would like to ask that the Council discuss the current state and |
3 |
> future of the GWN at their next meeting. |
4 |
I don't think you have to escalate that far. We should be able to discuss things without the thermonuclear option ;-) |
5 |
|
6 |
> 1. Reliability. The GWN claims to be a weekly publication, yet it |
7 |
> frequently fails to publish without prior warning. There was no edition |
8 |
> this week, and Patrick Lauer says that it is "unknown" whether there |
9 |
> will be an edition next week as Ulrich Plate is AWOL. |
10 |
We have tried to get a backup structure working, Halcy0n for example |
11 |
offered to help. Ulrich never responded to these offers. He usually has |
12 |
a good reason for not doing the GWN (like no Internet access, broken notebook etc), but I also find this quite unsatisfactory. |
13 |
|
14 |
> 2. Permissions. Although it could be considered flattering that the GWN |
15 |
> should choose a developer's blog as inspiration for an article, they |
16 |
> should ensure that they have the developer / author's permission before |
17 |
> quoting them (see previous complaints by brix, ciaranm and others). |
18 |
As far as I'm aware this has been taken care of. But with the GWN quite understaffed it is not easy to get everything done well. |
19 |
I'd appreciate some more support from others, but sadly my recruiting |
20 |
experiments usually ended after one contribution (for example summary of |
21 |
the -user ML). |
22 |
|
23 |
> I also believe that when posting an article or interview, a copy should |
24 |
> be sent to the relevant people to ensure that they are ok with what is |
25 |
> being posted (my dev of the week interview, for example, was rather |
26 |
> screwed up and misrepresentative). |
27 |
My fault. |
28 |
|
29 |
> When someone contacts GWN to have |
30 |
> something corrected, it would be appreciated were the GWN staff to at |
31 |
> least deign to acknowledge receipt, even if for some reason they choose |
32 |
> not to honour the corrections or post a retraction (although refusing to |
33 |
> publish corrections is extremely insulting to those wronged). |
34 |
The reason for that is that the GWN is mostly sent out by mail. This |
35 |
makes corrections a bit more difficult, but I think having a sane policy |
36 |
for that would be helpful. |
37 |
|
38 |
> 3. Misinformation, misquotations and outright fabrications. Sure, |
39 |
> there's freedom of the press, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse |
40 |
> for deliberately making up quotes and printing intentional |
41 |
> misinformation. |
42 |
I don't know what exactly you are talking about here. But it shouldn't happen. |
43 |
|
44 |
> 4. Credit. Care should be taken to ensure that crrect credit is given. |
45 |
Yes. |
46 |
|
47 |
> From a PR perspective, Gentoo could benefit greatly by better |
48 |
> utilisation of the GWN. I believe that as it stands, however, the GWN is |
49 |
> discouraging people from contributing and damaging Gentoo's credibility. |
50 |
The problem with the GWN is the lack of reliable useful contributions. |
51 |
There was a time when the GWN was ~80% written by me, but that took more |
52 |
time than I could afford in the last weeks. |
53 |
|
54 |
> Another thing that concerns me is the way the articles are written. It |
55 |
> is blatanly obvious that the GWN writers are not native English speakers |
56 |
> as both the grammar and the flow of the articles is far from attractive. |
57 |
Help is appreciated :-) |
58 |
The GWN has become a german thing, we have jokingly discussed writing it |
59 |
in german and letting someone translate it to english. |
60 |
|
61 |
> Having read through the archives, I notice that there was once a time |
62 |
> when the GWN was a great publication, and I would like to think that it |
63 |
> could become great yet again; in its current state, though, it is doing |
64 |
> more harm than good. |
65 |
Agreed. |
66 |
|
67 |
> Lack of content and poorly written or incorrect articles are often |
68 |
> justified by the GWN team on grounds of overwork and insufficient |
69 |
> manpower. When I asked why they were not recruiting, I was informed that |
70 |
> no-one has any interest in contributing. |
71 |
There's a big difference between one-off articles and continuous |
72 |
contribution. Also those that I found most willing to contribute had the |
73 |
biggest language problems - what we need is support from the native |
74 |
speakers. |
75 |
|
76 |
> Upon speaking with others, |
77 |
> however, I find that this is not the case -- people are interested, but |
78 |
> fear (and rightly so) that their work will be edited in such a way that |
79 |
> it is no longer something with which they want to be associated. |
80 |
> |
81 |
> Another complaint is that the GWN rejects any writing style which has |
82 |
> any degree of character or levity. Any attempt at dececnt writing (the |
83 |
> kind that would make it into publication in English newspapers or |
84 |
> magazines, for example), is met with the claim that "the GWN is not a |
85 |
> humorous publication". |
86 |
Blame the flamefests of the past. Whenever attempts were made to give |
87 |
the GWN more dynamic it was flamed down (because ze german humor is not |
88 |
funny! Nein! ;-) ) |
89 |
So the consensus was to keep the silly jokes out of the GWN since always |
90 |
someone misunderstands or complains. I'd like to have it a bit more |
91 |
open, funny, enjoyable ... but there's only so much I can do. |
92 |
|
93 |
> I would like to see discussion about the way the GWN is |
94 |
> (mis)representing Gentoo, how we can better actualise its full potential |
95 |
> and what can be done to address the concerns listed above. |
96 |
Sounds good. I hope at some point Ulrich responds. |
97 |
|
98 |
Thanks for bringing this up, |
99 |
|
100 |
Patrick |
101 |
-- |
102 |
Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move |