Re: [gentoo-dev] July Council Meeting: Requested Agenda Item

[Christel Dahlskjaer]

After waiting for my replies for 24+ hours I presume they disappeared
into a blackhole while we were lacking lists, so I'm resending.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
> From: Christel Dahlskjaer <christel@g.o>
> To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] July Council Meeting: Requested Agenda Item
> Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:13:37 +0100
>
> On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 09:27 +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 04:28:36AM +0100, Christel Dahlskjaer wrote:
> > > I would like to ask that the Council discuss the current state and
> > > future of the GWN at their next meeting.
> >
> > Council? Why escalate things? Have you talked to Ulrich about the
> > problems mentioned below? Isn't the GWN somehow a userrel issue? ;-)
>
> I have attempted, but as it happens I have never ever spoken to Ulrich
> as he does not respond to my e-mails and does not frequent IRC and I
> don't have his telephone number or address. And the GWN doesn't come
> under Userrel, although they do have a representative within Userrel,
> one whom I understand to be wanting to make some improvements to the
> GWN.
>
> As for why the Council, because thats what people suggested when I asked
> which route to take when he was unresponsive.
>
> > > 1. Reliability. The GWN claims to be a weekly publication, yet it
> > > frequently fails to publish without prior warning. There was no edition
> > > this week, and Patrick Lauer says that it is "unknown" whether there
> > > will be an edition next week as Ulrich Plate is AWOL.
> >
> > I agree there are problems due to Ulrich being awol every now and
> > then, but what can the council do about it? Fire him so the GWN is
> > unmaintained? ;-)
>
> No. I don't want anyone fired. However, I believe that the other GWN guy
> could be provided with sufficient access to make sure it goes out, and I
> believe that Ulrich could give some warning when possible so that
> Patrick or whomever can get it out regardless of whether Ulrich is
> around or not.
>
> > > 2. Permissions. Although it could be considered flattering that the GWN
> > > should choose a developer's blog as inspiration for an article, they
> > > should ensure that they have the developer / author's permission before
> > > quoting them (see previous complaints by brix, ciaranm and others).
> >
> > Why? What makes blog posts different to mailing list/forum threads,
> > new versions being released etc? Do you want to ask people for
> > permission then, too?
>
> If you re-read what I said I don't have an issue with the GWN or anyone
> else using someones blog post as inspiration, I do however believe that
> when quoting someone and writing the article in such a way that the
> 'quotee' appears to have spoken to the publication you need to get some
> consensus before printing.
>
> > > I also believe that when posting an article or interview, a copy should
> > > be sent to the relevant people to ensure that they are ok with what is
> > > being posted (my dev of the week interview, for example, was rather
> > > screwed up and misrepresentative). When someone contacts GWN to have
> > > something corrected, it would be appreciated were the GWN staff to at
> > > least deign to acknowledge receipt, even if for some reason they choose
> > > not to honour the corrections or post a retraction (although refusing to
> > > publish corrections is extremely insulting to those wronged).
> >
> > Considering Ulrich is appearently still/again awol, could that be the
> > reason? I have requested small fixes (like wrong email addresses in
> > stuff i submitted) every now and than and got what i asked for.
>
> He wasn't awol at the time of my writing my first few e-mails.
>
> > > 3. Misinformation, misquotations and outright fabrications. Sure,
> > > there's freedom of the press, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse
> > > for deliberately making up quotes and printing intentional
> > > misinformation.
> >
> > Huh? Can you back that statement up?
>
> To take an example, there were made up quotes in my GWN interview,
> however, nothing of great harm. I believe that time it was a case of
> attempting to make it more fun, it is however a worrying trend.
>
> > > From a PR perspective, Gentoo could benefit greatly by better
> > > utilisation of the GWN. I believe that as it stands, however, the GWN is
> > > discouraging people from contributing and damaging Gentoo's credibility.
> >
> > I have submitted a bunch of articles to the GWN, and it has always
> > worked fine for me. Yes, Ulrich is awol at times and sometimes there
> > are smaller corrections to make in the final article, but i never felt
> > discouraged to submit my stuff. Worst case it takes a few extra days
> > to get published.
>
> Ok. I am very glad to hear that not everyone shares the same experiences
> when it comes to contributing to the GWN.
>
> > > Another thing that concerns me is the way the articles are written. It
> > > is blatanly obvious that the GWN writers are not native English speakers
> > > as both the grammar and the flow of the articles is far from attractive.
> > > Having read through the archives, I notice that there was once a time
> > > when the GWN was a great publication, and I would like to think that it
> > > could become great yet again; in its current state, though, it is doing
> > > more harm than good.
> >
> > I disagree. GWN could use some more manpower to improve this and that,
> > but i don't see the harm - at least i could easily come up with lots
> > of stuff happening that does more harm (Not pointing my finger at
> > anyone and leaving it up to everyone's imagination to think of
> > something that does damage Gentoo in a terrible way).
>
> Yes, I agree they could use more manpower. They do however claim that
> they find it difficult to find someone to help and that is my motivation
> for bringing up the issues I notice. If the GWN themselves can't find a
> solution to the problem then I believe that the rest of us can attempt
> to help them find one.
>
> > > Lack of content and poorly written or incorrect articles are often
> > > justified by the GWN team on grounds of overwork and insufficient
> > > manpower. When I asked why they were not recruiting, I was informed that
> > > no-one has any interest in contributing. Upon speaking with others,
> > > however, I find that this is not the case -- people are interested, but
> > > fear (and rightly so) that their work will be edited in such a way that
> > > it is no longer something with which they want to be associated.
> >
> > I'm sure a solution can be found to that problem - actually Ulrich is
> > quite a nice guy to talk to, so if those people came out of hiding
> > those problems may be solved by talking.
>
> I wouldn't know, as I said he doesn't reply to my e-mails. OTOH, I have
> no reason to believe that he is not a nice guy to talk to.
>
> > > Another complaint is that the GWN rejects any writing style which has
> > > any degree of character or levity. Any attempt at dececnt writing (the
> > > kind that would make it into publication in English newspapers or
> > > magazines, for example), is met with the claim that "the GWN is not a
> > > humorous publication".
> >
> > http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20060522-newsletter.xml#doc_chap3
> > Look at the picture and tell me it's not at least a tiny bit
> > humorous. Agreed, the joke is a bit obvious.
>
> I can't quite see how your picture has anything to do with writing style
> and character of writing.
>
> > > I would like to see discussion about the way the GWN is
> > > (mis)representing Gentoo, how we can better actualise its full potential
> > > and what can be done to address the concerns listed above.
> >
> > I'm still not sure why the council should discuss the issue in the
> > first place, i think everyone agrees that the GWN is a bit
> > understaffed (for whatever reason) and some stuff doesn't work too
> > well. So i assume helping out with the GWN and helping those who fear
> > it for some reason may be the best way to solve these problems.
>
> I am not entirely sure why the council wouldn't be a good place to start
> a discussion about this. I believe that the council members will wish to
> help the GWN help themselves sufficiently to solve their problems,
> whether that be attempting to help them think of new ways to attract
> contributors or make any other changes.