Le 2011-10-09 16:33, Jeremiah C. Foster a écrit :
On Oct 7, 2011, at 21:19, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
Hi David,
Le 2011-10-07 02:30, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
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.
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.
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.
The criteria should be the same "would this help us towards our
goals?". And I think this project is clearly in the "yes" side.
I think we have to distinguish 2 things first:
I don't see how this distinction is useful.
- Advertising the assurance contract for the translation
to English
- Advertising the "liberation fund"
The assurance contract is about providing a useful service
to Debian users for a fee. It is our job as editors to
determine if the offer is worth it to users, considering the
price, and then worth being advertised in the DPN.
Where are agreed upon editorial guidelines that inform you
of your "job?" It is not a job, it is done for fun on a
volunteer basis. As such there is no real editorial power and
you should not act as a filter between useful debian stuff and
those want who read about it.
"job" in the sense of "responsibility".
No principle will tell
you whether the answer is a clear Yes or a clear No.
The liberation fund is asking for donations to freely
license the book's content. This part is quite clearly
inappropriate for the DPN
Its hardly clear - if it were we wouldn't be having this
debate.
Again, I think it's important to make the distinction I explained.
Otherwise, the discussion may indeed be unproductive, trying to find
an answer to a broken question.
- if people think
freeing the book deserves donations, they should get it
listed as a specific option by SPI. If SPI considers this
worthy of inclusion, then *maybe* the DPN could indicate
that this option was added.
Where do you come up with these policies? Is this what you
think should happen or is this something you've read
somewhere?
I didn't speak of any policy. Just like there is no policy
preventing a maintainer from asking package users to donate to some
random entity, no policy (ignoring DMUP) prevents DPN editors from
including the discussed section as is.
Then, there's how to
put these things. On this, I pretty much agree with MJ Ray
(the title "The Debian Administrator's Handbook needs your
support", the reference to the book as a "bestseller" and
the "So feel free to share the link." are all a little too
much for official publications).
But what if its factually correct that it is a bestseller?
Hum... if it was correct, I guess that part wouldn't be problematic
for me.
|