[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Debconf-team] About microblogging



On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Laura Arjona Reina <larjona@debian.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> El 13/11/15 a las 00:50, martin f krafft escribió:
>> also sprach Laura Arjona Reina <larjona@debian.org> [2015-11-13
>> 07:50 +1300]:
>>> * Tweet thanking individual sponsors, once they are published in
>>> the website, using @debconf (Bernelle and Madduck I think they
>>> have permissions via TweetDeck).
>>
>> Team @DebConf (that's Twitter parlance) consists of indiebio,
>> zobel, azeem, Maulkin, buxy, and myself. If anyone wants to join,
>> let us know.
>>
>> The only thing I would do differently this year is to include
>> sponsor logos in the tweets, and I think that the brochure
>> promises that too.
>>
>>> * 3 times during the year, write a blog post
>>
>> where? On blog.dc.o/dcX?
>
> Last year there were blog posts in blog.debconf.org/dc15 about the
> ongoing DC15 organization, and sponsors were thanked in bits.debian.org.
> No idea about former debconfs.

Prior to DC15 we didn't promise this, or provide this, as commercial
microblogging services were considered controversial within Debian. As
I understand this is still controversial. I personally have no issue
with us microblogging on identica and twitter, if someone is willing
to do the work, I'd just prefer to not promise this to sponsors after
DC16.

I apologize for not bringing this up sooner, and suspect there are a
variety of opinions here.

> I have no strong opinion about which one is better (biased towards
> bits because I think it has more audience, but it's only a supposition,
> I have no data), and I can work on both platforms without problems.

I don't think we should send something to bits for each sponsor, but
we should continue to use bits, for calls for fundraising/donations,
and such.

> Other opinions?
>
> - --
> Laura Arjona Reina
> https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJWRSnYAAoJEEw4Yb3McGt0JiMMAIksdFRWxD2d53NbYWRbyM59
> 7SJv1JITb1hxIgqtr/5slKekD17x6suJswhUWQSzYbW1AYaSXnN011nalCGij8Rm
> 53gUufUDH9LuM17kWizR9hb0TyXQBYWdGtUJpO3c2TA76+tyT4JCcGud9wOAjuEx
> R29PHUJIL3zQfHctdfxfc1DyAWX9y745k/u9Us5esLegQqeHfGM4bX3hc+rXr7ii
> SvuGHTlobRb1oCxd08sD5cy712GlvLeOMnowYokYZzWspmKWqZ4TbEMAr7t6dV3l
> 65j79Izg7KZvpWTe8J0bmAh9/LWz15movU1UFToywWKo1ODPXRvdsZ3rblQmoyNq
> 52xZpnz8vVYtyqzO4sLOEcPr4d0vBiVA459T73jdGyV+jFKemRSMzHdddhdDBPqD
> TsCpjFiCQecFpLchnekZRpv9Gq9clYeGCMwVDSNNJATgBD5trYGvsxxieFaBRHae
> rcLJ9HcKeBC2deMoy8qHd4iLxgwPdlFm2HRII70p1g==
> =0F0z
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Debconf-team mailing list
> Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org
> http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team

Reply to: