On Mar 7, 2010, at 3:55 PM, David E Jones wrote: > > On Mar 7, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Tim Ruppert wrote: > >> >> On Mar 7, 2010, at 12:56 PM, David E Jones wrote: >> >>> >>> On Mar 7, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 7, 2010, at 8:08 PM, David E Jones wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 7, 2010, at 6:51 AM, Tim Ruppert wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It IS news when there is a new tutorial out there. It is not news when >>>>>> you are doing marketing. That sounds like a reasonable place to draw >>>>>> the line. For instance, I don't put my blog messages up there when >>>>>> they're not going to directly help users - just like Wikipedia, only the >>>>>> facts. We haven't put up one message about any of our twitter feeds, >>>>>> social networking angles, new websites, all promotion stuff. What Hans >>>>>> put in there is straight up promotion. >>>>> >>>>> What does that have to do with news? This is the most strange definition >>>>> of news that I've ever heard... >>>>> >>>>> Maybe this would be helpful: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/news >>>>> >>>>> -David >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's true but some time ago we decided to merge the "blogs" section with >>>> the "in the news" section... in fact at that time we could have changed it >>>> to "news" or similar... but if we don't like what is happening now we can >>>> change the decision and remove the links that you don't like. >>> >>> That's not quite what I meant. IMO we can do (for the most part) whatever >>> we want on the home page, and by we I mean the community acting together >>> (moderated by the PMC). >>> >>> What I have a problem with here is the attempt by Tim to justify one >>> behavior and condemn the behavior of others by coming up with some weird >>> definition of the word "news", and saying we should draw the line where it >>> benefits him and causes problems for others. If we're going to discuss >>> this, let's talk plainly about what our goals our and see where they >>> conflict, not try to justify and condemn based on BS semantics and "right >>> fighting". >>> >>> -David >>> >> >> I was only using hte definition that we have used in the past - blogs and >> things on the wire - not marketing your own stuff- calling it OFBiz and then >> putting a link to your own site. Are you kidding me Jones? Now you think >> this is ok too? I've seen everything ... > > I guess I missed something, where did I say anything about that? > > -David >
My definition of news was malformed and used too many words - just got a little verbose -Jacopo said it much more clearly, Seriously though David - it wasn't malicious or right fighting. The reason that we're even talking about this is because someone put a link into the "news" - which was previously defined - to my knowledge - as external people talking about OFBiz and internal people blogging about it - which had a link to a Twitter account that is yet to be vetted as project based and then a link to their own site - which definitely manipulates people's ideas about what is going on. This shouldn't be there IMO. I removed the only blog post that HotWax had there that I thought was questionable, but I'm happy to remove all of ours and put them somewhere else if this isn't the news that we want up there. I guess you didn't say that what was there was right - you just didn't like my style - which upon further reflection - could've been clarified. So, let's get back to what I jumped to - is this in debate "news" link an ok one or not? I think it's not, should be removed, and we should further define rules around the places on the screen so that this doesn't continue to happen (the link in the header, the link now in the news, etc). Cheers, Ruppert
