Filipus Klutiero | 3 Aug 19:48 2011
Picon

Publicity team review workflow / Re: DebConf11 ends as another success for the Debian Project

Hi Alexander,

On 2011-08-02 05:20, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Hi!
>
> * Filipus Klutiero<chealer <at> gmail.com>  [110801 22:24]:
>
>> I suggest to ask a review for press releases sent to debian-news, unless
>> there is something urgent. The publicity team can help with that:
>> http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Publicity
>> debian-l10n-english <at> lists.debian.org  may also help for strictly
>> linguistic issues.
> 1. Many thanks for telling _me_ how the publicity team works.
> 2. Don't send full quotes.
> 3. Don't CCc me, I read the list.
Note that I didn't Cc you, I put you in To.
> 4. You mean like the following:
>
> > From #debconf-team
> 18:30:14<  Tolimar> 
svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/publicity/announcements/en/2011/2011-07-30-debconf-finished.wml
is the draft for the "DebConf finished" announcement.
> 18:30:35<  Tolimar>  Please review now (or remain for ever silent...) ;)
>
> > From #debian-publicity
> 18:29:05<  Tolimar>  Anyone:  Please review the announcement NOW.
>
> Or looking at the svn log:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Continue reading)

Bernd Zeimetz | 4 Aug 10:22 2011
Picon

Re: Publicity team review workflow / Re: DebConf11 ends as another success for the Debian Project

On 08/03/2011 07:48 PM, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>> 3. Don't CCc me, I read the list.
> Note that I didn't Cc you, I put you in To.

Even worse.

[...]

>> You once wrote, you'll still as long as you are needed.  Apparently you
>> are no longer needed.
> I would be interested to know if this statement is based on anything.

It is. Please stop trolling on the list. You did not yet present a
single fact why that announcement was *that* bad. So until now you are a
troll for me, nothing else. Please go away.

--

-- 
 Bernd Zeimetz                            Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.de                                http://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprints: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

Filipus Klutiero | 5 Aug 07:45 2011
Picon

Re: Publicity team review workflow / Re: DebConf11 ends as another success for the Debian Project

Hi Bernd,

On 2011-08-04 04:22, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 08/03/2011 07:48 PM, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>>> 3. Don't CCc me, I read the list.
>> Note that I didn't Cc you, I put you in To.
> Even worse.
How so?
> [...]
>
>>> You once wrote, you'll still as long as you are needed.  Apparently you
>>> are no longer needed.
>> I would be interested to know if this statement is based on anything.
> It is.
Oh, really... I would be interested to know if this statement is based 
on anything.
>   Please stop trolling on the list.
That will be a pleasure once you explain how I would be "trolling" on 
this list (but I'm aware that explaining might be more difficult than 
name-calling).

Bernd Zeimetz | 8 Aug 13:52 2011
Picon

Re: Publicity team review workflow / Re: DebConf11 ends as another success for the Debian Project

On 08/05/2011 07:45 AM, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>>   Please stop trolling on the list.
> That will be a pleasure once you explain how I would be "trolling" on
> this list (but I'm aware that explaining might be more difficult than
> name-calling).

Where is the list of issues you found in the post you were complaining
about? Finally come up with it, or  just STFU. The only thing you are
doing is to waste people's time.

--

-- 
 Bernd Zeimetz                            Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.de                                http://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprints: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

Filipus Klutiero | 8 Aug 21:27 2011
Picon

Re: Publicity team review workflow / Re: DebConf11 ends as another success for the Debian Project

Le 2011-08-08 07:52, Bernd Zeimetz a écrit :

Please see http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/index.en.html#codeofconduct
I am here to have a discussion; I am too feeble to have a fight.

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-publicity-request <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4E4038BB.8080203 <at> gmail.com

Holger Levsen | 9 Aug 09:22 2011

Re: Publicity team review workflow / Re: DebConf11 ends as another success for the Debian Project

On Montag, 8. August 2011, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Please see http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/index.en.html#codeofconduct
> I am here to have a discussion; I am too feeble to have a fight.

bullshit, you're trolling as usual.

Jeremiah Foster | 5 Aug 12:18 2011

Re: Publicity team review workflow / Re: DebConf11 ends as another success for the Debian Project


On Aug 3, 2011, at 19:48, Filipus Klutiero wrote:

> Publicity team: this incident makes me realize that some stuff can actually go through us with only a part
of the team being noticed. I am subscribed to the debian-publicity list but didn't get any mail about the
DebConf finished announcement. I just learn now that the team has an IRC channel. However, I'm not sure
that's a real solution. I for one can hardly be on IRC 24-7. 

Irssi + screen FTW!

Regards,

Jeremiah

Filipus Klutiero | 7 Aug 20:09 2011
Picon

#debian-publicity as a channel for new content notifications (Publicity team review workflow)

Hi Jeremiah,

On 2011-08-05 06:18, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2011, at 19:48, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>
>> Publicity team: this incident makes me realize that some stuff can actually go through us with only a part
of the team being noticed. I am subscribed to the debian-publicity list but didn't get any mail about the
DebConf finished announcement. I just learn now that the team has an IRC channel. However, I'm not sure
that's a real solution. I for one can hardly be on IRC 24-7.
> Irssi + screen FTW!
I'm not sure what you mean, but I for one am not willing to setup an IRC 
bouncer just to follow new content.
However, it may help to offer an IRC log of #debian-publicity.

Jeremiah Foster | 5 Aug 12:21 2011

Re: Publicity team review workflow / Re: DebConf11 ends as another success for the Debian Project


On Aug 3, 2011, at 19:48, Filipus Klutiero wrote:

> Should we change the workflow so that adding an announcement has to be accompanied by a mail to debian-publicity?

No. The workflow is transparent, consensus based, and flexible. It largely mirrors the way Debian works
and has gone through a number of iterations and is currently producing a fairly high quality stream of
press releases, weekly newsletters and updates, especially for a volunteer organization. 

There is no obvious reason a reasonable person could point to that requires changing the current workflow.

Regards,

Jeremiah

Filipus Klutiero | 7 Aug 20:36 2011
Picon

Re: Publicity team review workflow / Re: DebConf11 ends as another success for the Debian Project

Hi Jeremiah,

On 2011-08-05 06:21, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2011, at 19:48, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>
>> Should we change the workflow so that adding an announcement has to be accompanied by a mail to debian-publicity?
> No. The workflow is transparent, consensus based, and flexible. It largely mirrors the way Debian works
and has gone through a number of iterations and is currently producing a fairly high quality stream of
press releases, weekly newsletters and updates, especially for a volunteer organization.
Is the current workflow documented?
I don't see why a new workflow would have to be less transparent, 
consensus based, and even less flexible (except in the sense that it 
would be heavier, indeed). Nor why it would not mirror the way Debian 
works as much.
> There is no obvious reason a reasonable person could point to that requires changing the current workflow.
I guess the review workflow's objective is to improve the quality of 
Debian's communications. How much the increase should be is hard to say.
The current workflow may give communications a fair "volunteer" quality. 
But I think we have resources that would enable us to do better than a 
"volunteer" quality if they are used optimally.

I imagine the level of quality we should aim for depends on the 
communication. Communications at a small conference may not need too 
much review.
However, in my opinion content sent on debian-news on behalf of the 
project should have a minimum quality. Would it make sense to offer 
reviewing guidelines for content sent on behalf of the project? I'm 
thinking of a "soft approval", an approval granted passively when a 
content was (appropriately) sent for review to the publicity team and 
there is no feedback for a certain time, for example 2 days. This 
(Continue reading)

Jeremiah Foster | 8 Aug 11:33 2011

Re: Publicity team review workflow / Re: DebConf11 ends as another success for the Debian Project


On Aug 7, 2011, at 20:36, Filipus Klutiero wrote:

> Hi Jeremiah,
> 
> On 2011-08-05 06:21, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
>> On Aug 3, 2011, at 19:48, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>> 
>>> Should we change the workflow so that adding an announcement has to be accompanied by a mail to debian-publicity?
>> No. The workflow is transparent, consensus based, and flexible. It largely mirrors the way Debian works
and has gone through a number of iterations and is currently producing a fairly high quality stream of
press releases, weekly newsletters and updates, especially for a volunteer organization.
> Is the current workflow documented?
> I don't see why a new workflow would have to be less transparent, consensus based, and even less flexible
(except in the sense that it would be heavier, indeed). Nor why it would not mirror the way Debian works as much.

Heavier is bad.

>> There is no obvious reason a reasonable person could point to that requires changing the current workflow.
> I guess the review workflow's objective is to improve the quality of Debian's communications. How much
the increase should be is hard to say.
> The current workflow may give communications a fair "volunteer" quality. But I think we have resources
that would enable us to do better than a "volunteer" quality if they are used optimally.
> 
> I imagine the level of quality we should aim for depends on the communication. Communications at a small
conference may not need too much review.
> However, in my opinion content sent on debian-news on behalf of the project should have a minimum quality.
Would it make sense to offer reviewing guidelines for content sent on behalf of the project? I'm thinking
of a "soft approval", an approval granted passively when a content was (appropriately) sent for review to
the publicity team and there is no feedback for a certain time, for example 2 days. This wouldn't be a
(Continue reading)

Filipus Klutiero | 8 Aug 20:55 2011
Picon

Public relations guidelines (was Re: Publicity team review workflow)

Le 2011-08-08 05:33, Jeremiah Foster a écrit :
> On Aug 7, 2011, at 20:36, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>
>> Hi Jeremiah,
>>
>> On 2011-08-05 06:21, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
>>> On Aug 3, 2011, at 19:48, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>>>
>>>> Should we change the workflow so that adding an announcement has to be accompanied by a mail to debian-publicity?
>>> No. The workflow is transparent, consensus based, and flexible. It largely mirrors the way Debian
works and has gone through a number of iterations and is currently producing a fairly high quality stream
of press releases, weekly newsletters and updates, especially for a volunteer organization.
>> Is the current workflow documented?
>> I don't see why a new workflow would have to be less transparent, consensus based, and even less flexible
(except in the sense that it would be heavier, indeed). Nor why it would not mirror the way Debian works as much.
> Heavier is bad.
Well, if among two equally good processes one is heavier than the other, 
than the lighter one is preferable, yes. I don't think the current 
workflow has all the good from what I'm proposing though.
>>> There is no obvious reason a reasonable person could point to that requires changing the current workflow.
>> I guess the review workflow's objective is to improve the quality of Debian's communications. How much
the increase should be is hard to say.
>> The current workflow may give communications a fair "volunteer" quality. But I think we have resources
that would enable us to do better than a "volunteer" quality if they are used optimally.
>>
>> I imagine the level of quality we should aim for depends on the communication. Communications at a small
conference may not need too much review.
>> However, in my opinion content sent on debian-news on behalf of the project should have a minimum
quality. Would it make sense to offer reviewing guidelines for content sent on behalf of the project? I'm
thinking of a "soft approval", an approval granted passively when a content was (appropriately) sent for
(Continue reading)


Gmane