Re: Proposal for public announcement for the next release update
Luk Claes wrote:
> >> First, I think the release team has the right to send out texts to
> >> debian-news on his own. Why didn't you approve our mail? I'm considering
> >> to ask the mailing list admins to give us direct permissions to post to
> >> that list.
> > I don't think so. I didn't think the mail was suitable for the list
> > as is, which is why I took the liberty to start from scratch and
> > phrase it properly (imho) based on the detailed mail and information
> > Marc sent to the -devel-announce list before
> Why was it not suitable? Why should you start from scratch and base it
> on the mail to -devel-announce if it's clear that the mail to
> -devel-announce was clearly different on purpose?
The mail Marc wrote talks about things he wrote somewhere else instead
of containing something.
The mail considered the fact that Marc wrote something somewhere else
the most important issue.
Both is flawed.
See the first sentence:
"Today, an updated plan for the release of the next stable version
of Debian, codenamed "Etch", has been published."
It does not contain any information.
The next sentence, however, contains important information:
"Etch has been assigned 4.0 as version number."
This has been used in the press release as well.
Then there is a spurious linebreak without a new paragraph being
Marc continues and writes:
"The planned release date of December 2006 still looks realistic."
That's totally not suited for a press release. It's perfect for a
release update aimed at our developers, though.
Either it is realistic, then we ought to announce that December will
be the release date (that's what the press release did) or it's not
realistic in which case we should not talk about in public at all.
Next he talks about release architectures:
"Two architectures (s390, sparc) were added back to the release
architectures for etch, which now contains 11 architectures
(alpha, amd64, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390,
That's fine for developers. But for the press it isn't. If two
architectures have been added back, they formerly have been removed
apparently. Why? Where is that written? This part lacks context.
It can be propagated more positively if written like " the new release
will contain 11 architectures" (which the press release did). Press
releases ought to be positive, not negative.
And that's why the next sentence is not suited either:
"Etch will be shipped without 2.4 kernels and support for 2.4 has
He announces that things will be ripped off of Debian. Great. Err..
Why are you throwing things away? This has to be written positively,
like "kernel 2.6.xx has been selected for the upcoming release" or
something (which is what the press release did).
Did you get the basics? I'm too lazy to continue to rip apart the
next paragraph as well.
> > In and ideal world, we would work *together* and not work after each
> > other. I would much prefer to do that.
> So why don't you? AFAICT you didn't communicate at all why the proposed
> announcement was in your opionion not fit for the list...
Why don't I? Please talk to the people who were involved with other
press releases. There is a lot of talk and coordination between the
press people and them. Currently, feel free to talk to Jesus
Baronha-Gonzales for example.
In this case, and I've already written this, HE did whine all the time
when he saw me, crying and saying how ow annoyed he is by me. So the
issue obviously is so important, that it couldn't stand another day or
two for discussion.
If he would have behaved more patient and hadn't acted like a small
child, there would have been discussion.
Basically I had no time between writing the announcement and
announcing it since the issue was so pressing. (Apart from that,
nobody asked whether the text Marc wrote was suitable at all or if
firstname.lastname@example.org was happy or unhappy with it - and I only was unhappy
with it when I worked on it and noticed that it's totally unsuitable.)
> >> especially if you create your text in such a short time periode (and
> >> both Marc and I were away via the weekend). It might help to Cc
> >> debian-release for such input. Also, as you know, you could try to call
> > The input was taken from the announcement sent to -devel-announce. If
> > that should be wrong, I wonder why it has been sent there before.
> > Marcs version of the public announcement even linked to that mail. I
> > don't understand why you're upset now.
> Though the content was clearly different on purpose... not because of
> wrong information, but because of a different audience...
That's why the press release was written the way it was written.
Linux - the choice of a GNU generation.
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.