Re: Proposal for public announcement for the next release update
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 05:06:44PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> 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.
That sentence doesn't parse.
He wrote these things on a mailing list that is moderated. By you. So
if you claim not to have seen Marc's mail, you're doing a bad job as
> The mail considered the fact that Marc wrote something somewhere else
> the most important issue.
That doesn't parse as well. Please explain.
> 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.
It is an introduction for information following in the paragraph.
> 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
> started. Huh?
You are not seriously complaining about formatting issues that forced
you to re-write the entire article?
> Marc continues and writes:
> "The planned release date of December 2006 still looks realistic."
> That's totally not suited for a press release.
Why? People are already making fun of us because we miss so many
release dates. So I find it ok not to firmly announce release dates.
> It's perfect for a release update aimed at our developers, though.
Unfortunately, the press reads release updates aimed at our developers
as well, which is the reason why is it vital that developer-aimed
release updates and release update press releases are released
synchronously. The press release being posted five days after the
developer release update has caused more harm than it was able to
> 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.
I don't see any negativity in "we pulled two arches and then put them
> 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
> been deprecated."
> 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.
Being lazy at your job is a bad idea. This critique of Marc's e-mail
should have been done right after him posting the original, and you
two should have worked together in getting the information the release
team wanted to see in the press release in there while still keeping
the style you find appropriate. Instead, you have changed the
information in the proposal with your heavy editing and posted the
relese without clearing with the release team. I think that's a bad
> > > 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?
You didn't communicate what you didn't like in Marc's proposal.
Instead, you came up with a completely different text five days later
and post it almost immediately, knowing that Marc and aba were away
over the weekend.
> 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.
You might have done a good job with other press releases. With this
one, the process failed badly.
> 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.
Ignoring people who are too loud for you is contraproductive. Doing
things over their heads as well. You need to work _with_ people, not
> If he would have behaved more patient and hadn't acted like a small
> child, there would have been discussion.
You are not his teacher. You are an important person in the Debian
project, and you need to act responsible -EVEN- if the people around
you act like a small child. Punishing Marc by not talking to him is
contraproductive and harms the project.
If you don't think that you can handle the work load put upon you by
the various jobs you hold in Debian, please consider stepping down
from some of them or offer some of your packages for adoption or
> Basically I had no time between writing the announcement and
> announcing it since the issue was so pressing.
Actually, Marc has asked you not to bother with the release on the
thursday before you posted the press release.
Unfortunately, he didn't do so in an accountable media.
> (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.)
So you want us to ask for your thoughts to motivate you to share them,
but if we actually do, we get on your nerves and provoke un-thought
and distructive actions. Looks like we do it wrong any way we do it.
Please make up your mind and decide whether you want to be asked or
want to mention your thoughts without being asked. We are no
Actually, personally, I*d prefer if there were no need to poke you do
to things, it would be great if you would step forward yourself if you
find something worth discussing. And not finding this press release
worth discussing shows a lot about your attitude towards team work and
the release team.
> That's why the press release was written the way it was written.
It would have been good not to write it at all. This way.
Please, work _with_ people. Not _against_ them. Be responsible. Don't
harm the project.
Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835