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.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
