Hi, On Thu, 06 Oct 2011, David Prévot wrote: > It's the second time [1] such an advertisement reaches the DPN, and I > don't find it suitable at all. I think it was a mistake the first time, > and it would be a shame to consider the first error as a precedent. For > the same reason we don't do sponsorship link in the official website > main page, I believe we should not relay such campaign in the official DPN. With my Publicity & Press hat on, I completely agree with David. On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 08:30:11AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > I don't agree with you. It all depends on the goal of the project. Any > Debian-related project which has a goal to improve Debian (remember this > is about getting a DFSG-free Debian book) deserve a mention. Yes, sure it deserve a mention, but maybe is better to mention it when it will be published and not to pre-sell copies, isn't it? Our intent is to inform: and sure we will inform people about another interesting and - I bet - useful piece of documentation when it will be available. But DPN is not intended to advertise commercial project, as the publication of your book seems to be. > The fact that there is money involved should not be a sufficient reason > to refuse to cover it. > > I don't really know what you put under "sponsorship link" but we have > sponsorhip links at various places, and we even used to have some > on the main web page at the time where the web mirrors were hosted > by third parties. No. We *had* them: as now the web mirrors are only hosted on Debian machines, we have dropped them. > > The criteria should be the same "would this help us towards our > goals?". And I think this project is clearly in the "yes" side. > The criteria here is: if the "donate" thingie is something correlated with the Debian Project *officially* (as, for instance, DebConf) and the money will go to the Debian Project, we publish it. If not, I'm sorry but it won't find space in our *official* Newsletter. That said, I want to add that as usual in the Debian Project, the last word need to be the one of people who actually do the work. For this reason, I consider David's and Alexander's opinion a little bit more relevant than the other's one. Cheers, Francesca ps: thanks David and Alexander for working on the next issue! :) -- "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint is more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey... stuff." The Doctor
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature