1 |
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 10:07 +0200, Lars Weiler wrote: |
2 |
> Congratulations. I just unsubscribed from the |
3 |
> gwn-feedback-alias after reading your mail. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> * Christel Dahlskjaer <christel@g.o> [06/06/10 04:28 +0100]: |
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 |
> |
11 |
> Several times Kurt or I took over the job of publicing the |
12 |
> GWN when Ulrich asked us. So, there is a backup, but he |
13 |
> didn't asked for this week. |
14 |
|
15 |
I am glad to hear that backup has been used in the past, and I hope that |
16 |
it will be again. |
17 |
|
18 |
> > 2. Permissions. Although it could be considered flattering that the GWN |
19 |
> > should choose a developer's blog as inspiration for an article, they |
20 |
> > should ensure that they have the developer / author's permission before |
21 |
> > quoting them (see previous complaints by brix, ciaranm and others). |
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). When someone contacts GWN to have |
27 |
> > something corrected, it would be appreciated were the GWN staff to at |
28 |
> > least deign to acknowledge receipt, even if for some reason they choose |
29 |
> > not to honour the corrections or post a retraction (although refusing to |
30 |
> > publish corrections is extremely insulting to those wronged). |
31 |
> |
32 |
> And I expect the same from you. You should ask the affected |
33 |
> people first before starting a discussion about them on our |
34 |
> public mailing lists. This is a device I can give you for |
35 |
> further userrelations-activities. |
36 |
|
37 |
I have actually contacted Ulrich on several occasions, he chose not to |
38 |
get back to me. And I have spoken a fair bit with Patrick, and from |
39 |
speaking with Patrick it is quite obvious that the GWN could do with |
40 |
some help, and I am hoping that my addressing the problems we can pool |
41 |
together and find ways of helping them. |
42 |
|
43 |
> > 4. Credit. Care should be taken to ensure that crrect credit is given. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> It is. Either as "Author" or "Contributor". |
46 |
|
47 |
Or it is totally lacking, like in the above mentioned blog scenario. |
48 |
|
49 |
> > Another thing that concerns me is the way the articles are written. It |
50 |
> > is blatanly obvious that the GWN writers are not native English speakers |
51 |
> > as both the grammar and the flow of the articles is far from attractive. |
52 |
> > Having read through the archives, I notice that there was once a time |
53 |
> > when the GWN was a great publication, and I would like to think that it |
54 |
> > could become great yet again; in its current state, though, it is doing |
55 |
> > more harm than good. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> It's quite interesting to see, that the GWN and also |
58 |
> Debian's Weekly Newsletter is run by Germans mostly. Is |
59 |
> there a problem with native speakers to run a periodically |
60 |
> newsletter for a long time (> 3 years)? |
61 |
|
62 |
No, there isn't a problem with it. However, as I understand it the GWN |
63 |
is translated into N languages, and I would presume the german version |
64 |
to be the one which reads better. Could it be an idea to have someone |
65 |
whos first language is English look over and improve upon the English |
66 |
version? I know we already dot the i's and cross the t's, maybe it would |
67 |
be of benefit if someone worked a bit on how it flows. |
68 |
|
69 |
> > Lack of content and poorly written or incorrect articles are often |
70 |
> > justified by the GWN team on grounds of overwork and insufficient |
71 |
> > manpower. When I asked why they were not recruiting, I was informed that |
72 |
> > no-one has any interest in contributing. Upon speaking with others, |
73 |
> > however, I find that this is not the case -- people are interested, but |
74 |
> > fear (and rightly so) that their work will be edited in such a way that |
75 |
> > it is no longer something with which they want to be associated. |
76 |
> |
77 |
> Subscribe to the gwn-feedback-alias and read or comment the |
78 |
> submissions to the GWN. Make sure that every user will |
79 |
> receive and answer. And forward questions to the |
80 |
> arch-teams. Isn't that userrel's job? I didn't saw your |
81 |
> contributions there yet. |
82 |
|
83 |
I wasn't aware the gwn-feedback alias was public, if it is then I would |
84 |
be more than happy to subscribe to it and read and comment to every |
85 |
user. Would I be stepping on anyones toes by doing so? And if the GWN |
86 |
would like to off-load some stuff onto Userrel, then userrel would be |
87 |
more than happy to help. We already have a GWN representative and he |
88 |
knows that several of the userrel team would jump at the chance to help |
89 |
out with various GWN related bits. |