1 |
On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 10:56 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 03:28 +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote: |
3 |
> > I would like to ask that the Council discuss the current state and |
4 |
> > future of the GWN at their next meeting. |
5 |
> I don't think you have to escalate that far. We should be able to discuss things without the thermonuclear option ;-) |
6 |
|
7 |
I have no idea, I asked people, they suggested the Council. It may be |
8 |
the wrong place :) |
9 |
|
10 |
> > 1. Reliability. The GWN claims to be a weekly publication, yet it |
11 |
> > frequently fails to publish without prior warning. There was no edition |
12 |
> > this week, and Patrick Lauer says that it is "unknown" whether there |
13 |
> > will be an edition next week as Ulrich Plate is AWOL. |
14 |
> We have tried to get a backup structure working, Halcy0n for example |
15 |
> offered to help. Ulrich never responded to these offers. He usually has |
16 |
> a good reason for not doing the GWN (like no Internet access, broken notebook etc), but I also find this quite unsatisfactory. |
17 |
|
18 |
I am sure his reasons are good, and I agree there should be a backup |
19 |
structure in place. |
20 |
|
21 |
> > 2. Permissions. Although it could be considered flattering that the GWN |
22 |
> > should choose a developer's blog as inspiration for an article, they |
23 |
> > should ensure that they have the developer / author's permission before |
24 |
> > quoting them (see previous complaints by brix, ciaranm and others). |
25 |
> 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. |
26 |
> I'd appreciate some more support from others, but sadly my recruiting |
27 |
> experiments usually ended after one contribution (for example summary of |
28 |
> the -user ML). |
29 |
|
30 |
Which is why I am hoping that by bringing it up elsewhere, someone may |
31 |
have some ideas of how to recruit people, or just attract people enough |
32 |
for them to make the occasional contribution. |
33 |
|
34 |
> > I also believe that when posting an article or interview, a copy should |
35 |
> > be sent to the relevant people to ensure that they are ok with what is |
36 |
> > being posted (my dev of the week interview, for example, was rather |
37 |
> > screwed up and misrepresentative). |
38 |
> My fault. |
39 |
|
40 |
Ok, thank you. |
41 |
|
42 |
> > When someone contacts GWN to have |
43 |
> > something corrected, it would be appreciated were the GWN staff to at |
44 |
> > least deign to acknowledge receipt, even if for some reason they choose |
45 |
> > not to honour the corrections or post a retraction (although refusing to |
46 |
> > publish corrections is extremely insulting to those wronged). |
47 |
> The reason for that is that the GWN is mostly sent out by mail. This |
48 |
> makes corrections a bit more difficult, but I think having a sane policy |
49 |
> for that would be helpful. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> > 3. Misinformation, misquotations and outright fabrications. Sure, |
52 |
> > there's freedom of the press, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse |
53 |
> > for deliberately making up quotes and printing intentional |
54 |
> > misinformation. |
55 |
> I don't know what exactly you are talking about here. But it shouldn't happen. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> > 4. Credit. Care should be taken to ensure that crrect credit is given. |
58 |
> Yes. |
59 |
> |
60 |
> > From a PR perspective, Gentoo could benefit greatly by better |
61 |
> > utilisation of the GWN. I believe that as it stands, however, the GWN is |
62 |
> > discouraging people from contributing and damaging Gentoo's credibility. |
63 |
> The problem with the GWN is the lack of reliable useful contributions. |
64 |
> There was a time when the GWN was ~80% written by me, but that took more |
65 |
> time than I could afford in the last weeks. |
66 |
|
67 |
See, if you spent less time arguing with that elitist bastard Chri... |
68 |
er, no :P Yes, I think what the GWN needs the most is more hands at the |
69 |
deck. |
70 |
|
71 |
> > Another thing that concerns me is the way the articles are written. It |
72 |
> > is blatanly obvious that the GWN writers are not native English speakers |
73 |
> > as both the grammar and the flow of the articles is far from attractive. |
74 |
> Help is appreciated :-) |
75 |
> The GWN has become a german thing, we have jokingly discussed writing it |
76 |
> in german and letting someone translate it to english. |
77 |
|
78 |
I don't think thats a bad bad idea, that is, maybe someone could atleast |
79 |
vamp it up a bit before it goes live. |
80 |
|
81 |
> > Having read through the archives, I notice that there was once a time |
82 |
> > when the GWN was a great publication, and I would like to think that it |
83 |
> > could become great yet again; in its current state, though, it is doing |
84 |
> > more harm than good. |
85 |
> Agreed. |
86 |
> |
87 |
> > Lack of content and poorly written or incorrect articles are often |
88 |
> > justified by the GWN team on grounds of overwork and insufficient |
89 |
> > manpower. When I asked why they were not recruiting, I was informed that |
90 |
> > no-one has any interest in contributing. |
91 |
> There's a big difference between one-off articles and continuous |
92 |
> contribution. Also those that I found most willing to contribute had the |
93 |
> biggest language problems - what we need is support from the native |
94 |
> speakers. |
95 |
|
96 |
Nod. I presume for some contributing weekly is rather difficult (finding |
97 |
something to write about, finding the time to draft, re-draft, clean, |
98 |
tidy, send off for feedback, double check, stand on their head etc etc) |
99 |
however I guess it would be possible to rotate if there was enough |
100 |
'freelance editors' on the uh, payroll. |
101 |
|
102 |
> > Upon speaking with others, |
103 |
> > however, I find that this is not the case -- people are interested, but |
104 |
> > fear (and rightly so) that their work will be edited in such a way that |
105 |
> > it is no longer something with which they want to be associated. |
106 |
> > |
107 |
> > Another complaint is that the GWN rejects any writing style which has |
108 |
> > any degree of character or levity. Any attempt at dececnt writing (the |
109 |
> > kind that would make it into publication in English newspapers or |
110 |
> > magazines, for example), is met with the claim that "the GWN is not a |
111 |
> > humorous publication". |
112 |
> Blame the flamefests of the past. Whenever attempts were made to give |
113 |
> the GWN more dynamic it was flamed down (because ze german humor is not |
114 |
> funny! Nein! ;-) ) |
115 |
> So the consensus was to keep the silly jokes out of the GWN since always |
116 |
> someone misunderstands or complains. I'd like to have it a bit more |
117 |
> open, funny, enjoyable ... but there's only so much I can do. |
118 |
|
119 |
So, what brought on the "This is not a humorous publication" attitude |
120 |
was infact outsiders rather than the GWN team, as in, it was reactional |
121 |
rather than a case of you guys just deciding fun was bad? |
122 |
|
123 |
> > I would like to see discussion about the way the GWN is |
124 |
> > (mis)representing Gentoo, how we can better actualise its full potential |
125 |
> > and what can be done to address the concerns listed above. |
126 |
> Sounds good. I hope at some point Ulrich responds. |
127 |
|
128 |
I hope so too, I also hope that anyone who may have some ideas will |
129 |
speak up rather than everyone just telling me how horrible I am for |
130 |
bringing these issues up! :) |
131 |
|
132 |
> Thanks for bringing this up, |
133 |
|
134 |
Thank you for pointing some of them out. |