Hi, Le 03/11/2011 10:21, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl a écrit : > Am 02.11.2011 19:27, schrieb David Prévot: >>> Okay, let's try it that way: Do you, David, could think of a >>> formulation, that you would find acceptable for the DPN? >> It's not the formulation (the form) that I'm worried about, I'm strongly >> opposed to the substance (the content) of a such nature announcement. > > Okay. > What part of the content are you opposed too: > > a) The two translating their book? > b) The two calling their book a "bestseller"? > c) The two trying to free the book? These three points are not News for the DPN [0], and we should not even have to discuss if it's worth mentioning them again: we don't do that, we only sometime edit a follow up if something new pops up. 0: http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2010/09/#free We could discuss if we should have or not relayed that information last year, but as Alexander already pointed: “Well, we can't change what we did back then.” > d) The two raising money to do that? Even if that was already partly covered in the initial article [0], the status update on this topic is the only new piece of information, and as such, could maybe have deserved a mention in the DPN. Just in case I was previously misunderstood: I strongly object to see it covered again inside the DPN. >> You already agreed within the press team to not relay such initiative >> via a Debian press release (our DPL even strongly objected to it). The >> DPN is not as formal as a press release, but I fail to understand why >> strong objections already expressed by some current editors of the DPN >> should be considered as arguable while it's OK to refuse when strong >> objections are expressed within the press team. > > Sorry, but I don't understand your second sentence. Could you please > rephrase that, if the following doesn't address your point? I'm sorry, reading back this part I can see why it could be misinterpreted. “You” in the first sentence was indeed referring to Alexander and to the press team as a whole. The second sentence was more about the external (different) recognition of these groups' decisions. > I take it that you think we/I don't consider your opinion/veto? I was partly referring to Raphaël's behavior on this thread. Sending numerous messages on this list about this topic sounds highly inappropriate: presenting himself as “a regular contributor of the publicity team” while being obviously in conflict of interest, and “wonder[ing] what's the proper way to escalate this” really looks like the do-ocracy can be respected on one side (press team decision), but needs to be bypassed on the other (for the exact same topic). > The only difference is that the press > team found its consensus quicker than the publicity team (which isn't a > surprise given that it's smaller and the active part³ of the press team > lives in the same household). Deciding directly between the actors, and not in a public place like this one may also have been an advantage to find a quicker consensus. Of course, if concerned people all go in the same direction, there is not much to argue anyway. Having the discussion in a public place is a good thing, since it allows people to share their point of view, and to give advice, but seems to make it a bit more difficult to take a final decision when external people wants to lobby for a specific decision. The blurry line of the publicity team (who is a member, who is not) doesn't seems to help here. When Stefano “encourage[s] the people regularly doing DPN to decide”, that's more in line with the do-ocracy. I'm not advocating private discussion, but it could have been less “annoying/demotivating” if non-regular editors of the DPN had been less active on this thread. Regards David
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature