1 |
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 04:28:36AM +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 |
|
5 |
Council? Why escalate things? Have you talked to Ulrich about the |
6 |
problems mentioned below? Isn't the GWN somehow a userrel issue? ;-) |
7 |
|
8 |
> 1. Reliability. The GWN claims to be a weekly publication, yet it |
9 |
> frequently fails to publish without prior warning. There was no edition |
10 |
> this week, and Patrick Lauer says that it is "unknown" whether there |
11 |
> will be an edition next week as Ulrich Plate is AWOL. |
12 |
|
13 |
I agree there are problems due to Ulrich being awol every now and |
14 |
then, but what can the council do about it? Fire him so the GWN is |
15 |
unmaintained? ;-) |
16 |
|
17 |
> 2. Permissions. Although it could be considered flattering that the GWN |
18 |
> should choose a developer's blog as inspiration for an article, they |
19 |
> should ensure that they have the developer / author's permission before |
20 |
> quoting them (see previous complaints by brix, ciaranm and others). |
21 |
|
22 |
Why? What makes blog posts different to mailing list/forum threads, |
23 |
new versions being released etc? Do you want to ask people for |
24 |
permission then, too? |
25 |
|
26 |
> I also believe that when posting an article or interview, a copy should |
27 |
> be sent to the relevant people to ensure that they are ok with what is |
28 |
> being posted (my dev of the week interview, for example, was rather |
29 |
> screwed up and misrepresentative). 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 |
|
35 |
Considering Ulrich is appearently still/again awol, could that be the |
36 |
reason? I have requested small fixes (like wrong email addresses in |
37 |
stuff i submitted) every now and than and got what i asked for. |
38 |
|
39 |
> 3. Misinformation, misquotations and outright fabrications. Sure, |
40 |
> there's freedom of the press, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse |
41 |
> for deliberately making up quotes and printing intentional |
42 |
> misinformation. |
43 |
|
44 |
Huh? Can you back that statement up? |
45 |
|
46 |
> From a PR perspective, Gentoo could benefit greatly by better |
47 |
> utilisation of the GWN. I believe that as it stands, however, the GWN is |
48 |
> discouraging people from contributing and damaging Gentoo's credibility. |
49 |
|
50 |
I have submitted a bunch of articles to the GWN, and it has always |
51 |
worked fine for me. Yes, Ulrich is awol at times and sometimes there |
52 |
are smaller corrections to make in the final article, but i never felt |
53 |
discouraged to submit my stuff. Worst case it takes a few extra days |
54 |
to get published. |
55 |
|
56 |
> Another thing that concerns me is the way the articles are written. It |
57 |
> is blatanly obvious that the GWN writers are not native English speakers |
58 |
> as both the grammar and the flow of the articles is far from attractive. |
59 |
> Having read through the archives, I notice that there was once a time |
60 |
> when the GWN was a great publication, and I would like to think that it |
61 |
> could become great yet again; in its current state, though, it is doing |
62 |
> more harm than good. |
63 |
|
64 |
I disagree. GWN could use some more manpower to improve this and that, |
65 |
but i don't see the harm - at least i could easily come up with lots |
66 |
of stuff happening that does more harm (Not pointing my finger at |
67 |
anyone and leaving it up to everyone's imagination to think of |
68 |
something that does damage Gentoo in a terrible way). |
69 |
|
70 |
> Lack of content and poorly written or incorrect articles are often |
71 |
> justified by the GWN team on grounds of overwork and insufficient |
72 |
> manpower. When I asked why they were not recruiting, I was informed that |
73 |
> no-one has any interest in contributing. Upon speaking with others, |
74 |
> however, I find that this is not the case -- people are interested, but |
75 |
> fear (and rightly so) that their work will be edited in such a way that |
76 |
> it is no longer something with which they want to be associated. |
77 |
|
78 |
I'm sure a solution can be found to that problem - actually Ulrich is |
79 |
quite a nice guy to talk to, so if those people came out of hiding |
80 |
those problems may be solved by talking. |
81 |
|
82 |
> Another complaint is that the GWN rejects any writing style which has |
83 |
> any degree of character or levity. Any attempt at dececnt writing (the |
84 |
> kind that would make it into publication in English newspapers or |
85 |
> magazines, for example), is met with the claim that "the GWN is not a |
86 |
> humorous publication". |
87 |
|
88 |
http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20060522-newsletter.xml#doc_chap3 |
89 |
Look at the picture and tell me it's not at least a tiny bit |
90 |
humorous. Agreed, the joke is a bit obvious. |
91 |
|
92 |
> I would like to see discussion about the way the GWN is |
93 |
> (mis)representing Gentoo, how we can better actualise its full potential |
94 |
> and what can be done to address the concerns listed above. |
95 |
|
96 |
I'm still not sure why the council should discuss the issue in the |
97 |
first place, i think everyone agrees that the GWN is a bit |
98 |
understaffed (for whatever reason) and some stuff doesn't work too |
99 |
well. So i assume helping out with the GWN and helping those who fear |
100 |
it for some reason may be the best way to solve these problems. |
101 |
|
102 |
cheers, |
103 |
Wernfried |
104 |
|
105 |
-- |
106 |
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org |
107 |
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org |
108 |
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org |