On 9/6/20 8:02 PM, Christian Boltz wrote:
Hello,
Am Freitag, 4. September 2020, 12:19:30 CEST schrieb ddemaio:
On 9/4/20 12:05 AM, Vinzenz Vietzke wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 3. September 2020, 21:41:47 schrieb Christian Boltz:
...
I always recognized news-o-o as some magazine where anything is
possible as long as it's somehow related to openSUSE.
That sounds more like how I would describe planet.o.o.
(Mostly - on planet.o.o we also get some off-topic posts from
community members, and that's fine.)
No. There's a fundamental difference: curation, or the level of it.
Well, I haven't seen too much curation on news.o.o, but that might be
because not too many people submitted non-news articles so far.
On planet- o-o I get content written by members. Most of the time
it's openSUSE related in a very loose way.
That might depend on your definition of "openSUSE related" and "loose",
but in general - yes, I know that planet.o.o doesn't have a strict
content policy (for good reasons).
On a magazine there are a few people getting content into a curation
queue like via email or pull request for their reviewing. Plus
these people try actively to generate content to the page. [1]
Yeah, I know the definition of a magazine. However, I don't see news.o.o
as one ;-)
[...]
news-o-o has no clear definition what it is. If it's strictly "news
from the openSUSE project" like in press releases then we need to
have a separate place for stuff like a report from a release party.
If it's not but more like an overall magazine then we need to make
sure the huge news don't get buried.
If you look at the existing content on news.o.o, then I'd say it's about
"news from the openSUSE project" - but not as strict as in "only press
releases" (for example, articles about release parties are also news).
OTOH I don't remember articles featuring a specific package (besides the
two in the last months).
And yes, AFAIK we don't have a formal definition of news.o.o written
down somewhere, that's why I'm describing it based on the existing
content. We've used it in this way since years, so - reality wins ;-)
As a sidenote - we also don't have formal definitions and policies in
several other areas, and nevertheless, things usually "just work"[tm]
:-)
...
Also, articles featuring a specific package also feel off-topic for
news.o.o [2] - in the recent case, I'd have expected the post in
someone's blog and then on planet.o.o. Independent of the question
in which repo this package lives.
Again: missing definition of news-o-o.
I might repeat myself, but the way Fedora is doing it is just great.
Good content, balanced between community news, announcements and
tutorials.
I just had a look at fedoramagazine.org - it's good as a magazine, but I
don't think that it fits the definition of "news".
We have other places for texts and howtos about specific packages, with
the wikis being the best ones IMHO. We already have some pages about
specific applications (in the main namespace), and we also have the SDB
namespace which might fit better for "how to do $task with $program".
"Advertising" these articles is an open question, but I'm sure there are
ways to make them visible.
I looked at the Matomo out of curiosity to see the interest these type
of articles generate. Both this and the previous one appear to
generate a lot more interest than normal, so I believe we should
offer some option here.
Can you please define "more interest than normal"? Which articles did
you look at for comparison? And what is "a lot more"?
(Maybe you can provide the numbers for the last 10 or 20 articles?)
It is rather difficult to compare because of the time line of the
releases, but taking the numbers from July 1 period, you'll see:
Rise of TW - 600
Ritchie-CLI - 734(revert caused a problem and there are two)
Alpha Jump - 1084
TW Apache Wireshark, etc - 1000
oSLO Talks Accepted - 297
Partiicpate in Hacktoberfest - 367
TW Kernel 5.8 - 493
Prototype brings Leap, SLE Closer - 684
TW GCC 10.2 - 367
Leap Retro - 445
Install Party - 338
oneAPI Compatibility - 810
Maybe having articles featuring content like this isn't exactly what
some project members want, but the numbers don't lie.
Hehe, you know the saying "don't trust statistics you didn't fake
yourself?" ;-)
For example, I'd guess that Matomo misses all the people who read
news.o.o via feedreader or via planet.o.o. And I'd also _guess_ that
this target group might find magazine-style articles less interesting.
Building something new could work, but the existing structure is set
up and brings in new readers to news.o.o., which might bring in new
followers on social media, etc. I'm in favor of content like this
posted on news.o.o. I know some aren't in favor of this and I don't
agree with them on this topic.
Indeed, this is clearly a controversial topic.
As long as there is a clear set of rules in the README.md and the
author meets the criteria, I don't see a problem with it.
The Criteria (meet two of the five rules)
Criteria 1 - Author must provide a call to action for the community.
I.E. - Asking for community help.
Criteria 2 - Article is meant to increase awareness of a package/s
with the intent to make it apart of the official repositories.
Advertising home repositories is discouraged and may be subject to
removal of the article. Any packages linked to home projects need to
s/removal of/not accepting/
include a disclaimer regarding the absence of security as the
packages are currently not official and have not gone through the
legal and quality assurance processes.
I don't think Criteria 2 is a good idea - if someone needs help to get a
package in shape for the official distribution, the development
mailinglists (usually factory, unless we have a specific ML for that
area) are a much better place, and have a more fitting audience. Also,
MLs make it much easier to answer a call for help.
The same more or less also applies to Criteria 1, but it might depend a
bit on what the call for action asks for.
And regarding the disclaimer about home repo security - we'll get
articles that say "look, we are presenting this great package - but
don't install it because it's in a completely insecure repo".
Am I the only one who thinks that this will give a bad public impression
of (at least) the overall article?
I felt somewhat similar about a disclaimer, but disclaimers do serve a
purpose.
Criteria 3 - Article informs readers of the efforts of an open-source
project/s and how they relate explicitly to the openSUSE Project, its
community and users.
Criteria 4 - Is an official package in the distribution, an official
openSUSE distribution or a project within the openSUSE Project.
Criteria 5 - Provides a "how to use" or "tutorial" about on an
official package within the openSUSE distribution.
With the requirement to meet two of these five rules, I can imagine
several ways you wouldn't like to get quite useless articles to news.o.o
;-)
I'll simply dig out the example I already posted some days ago:
I recently asked one of the upstream AppArmor devs to adjust some
library paths in the Ubuntu Chromium profile so that they match the
openSUSE paths.
This clearly meets criteria 3 and 4, and would therefore qualify for a
news article ;-) And I could easily make it also match Criteria 1 by
adding "Please test the Chromium AppArmor profile and report any issues
you find."
I hope this explains why the Criterias need some ;-) improvement.
To sum it up:
- I'm not a fan of turning news.o.o into a magazine
- If you really want to do that, please ask a wider audience for their
opinion, for example on opensuse-project
- The Criteria will need quite some improvements to make them
troll-proof ;-)
Seeing that this doesn't appear to be going down a path for criteria,
how about we switch it and express it that if your article would meet
criteria 1, 2, etc, we recommend to use another avenue (i.e. - mailing
lists, planet, others) rather than use news.o.o. Criteria 3 and 5 could
be considered acceptable for news.o.o.
v/r
Doug
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscr...@opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+ow...@opensuse.org
