Re: blog.debian.org - going forward
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 30, 2011, at 23:57, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, we discussed blog.d.o on this
> list [1,2]. At DebConf11, discussions on this topic have been going on.
> In short, DSA is working on a blog.debian.org machine running a Movable
> Type instance, which we could use as Debian blog. I'd like to hereby
> thank DSA for their help on this matter.
>
> While work is going on on that side, we have to decide how we're going
> to use it. I think this list is the right place where to decide it,
> although I apologize in advance for not having attended the publicity
> BoF (whereas I've attended the publicity *talk*), where you might have
> discussed the topic already. Either way, letting -publicity know how it
> will work would be useful.
>
> Barring already existing proposals, my own proposal is to handle blog
> posts similarly to how we handle the @debian account on identi.ca. That
> is, we could enable anyone to draft blog posts for blog.d.o (and sign
> them in the text or author of the post, as many "institutional" blogs
> do). Then we could require a given number of acks before going ahead and
> posting it and, possibly, enable a given number of nacks to block a post
> to go ahead. Beside of the actual numbers of acks/nacks (on which I
> welcome suggestions), what do you think of this proposal? I think it
> would allow for both transparency and collaboration on posts.
I think we should have a lower threshold for posting. Firstly, I doubt we'll get a lot of posts that would somehow contradict Debian's social contract. I think instead most DDs would prefer to post on their own blogs so I don't see a huge danger in lowering the threshold for posts. I think an ack or two from the publicity team's or press team's DDs ought to be sufficient and that might be any DD on those lists.
Nacks might remain as you propose, if something doesn't have a good deal of support maybe it isn't appropriate for the Debian blog? And perhaps something like that is better on a personal blog where it will show up in Planet.d.o anyway. So I feel a nack ought to have more weight that an ack which hopefully lowers the barrier to posting and allows Debian a bit of control over who spams the world in Debian's name.
>
> I'm not sure we will ever need to have embargoed blog posts as we have
> for press releases (after all, if it is really embargoed matter, we will
> probably go for a proper press release rather than for a blog post,
> right?). But in case we will need it, I think we can do with private
> drafts on the blog platform, calling for review on this list.
Seems to be a reasonable conclusion.
> I don't know Movable Type well enough to understand how authentication
> will work, but I expect it to support different level of users and I
> guess we can handle posting access to it as we have done with identi.ca,
> i.e. starting with volunteers and enlarging on the basis of work done on
> blog posts.
Shouldn't it just plug in to Debian's LDAP? That may leave those of us who are not DDs out in the cold a bit, or forced to use another log in method, or included foo-guest logins in LDAP. Or perhaps those who want to post to Debian's blog might become a DD first? I mean, if you want to accept the responsibility of speaking for Debian you'd likely want to accept the responsibility of becoming a DD.
>
> In the long run, DSA is aiming at having Oauth-based authentication tied
> to Debian account (not sure if also tied to Alioth accounts, though),
> bug in the beginning we will probably need separate accounts created in
> the blogging platform.
Seems likely to me too.
Regards,
Jeremiah
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)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=eQuh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: