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

Re: blog.debian.org - going forward

Hash: SHA1

On Jul 30, 2011, at 23:57, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> Long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, we discussed blog.d.o on this
> list [1,2]. At DebConf11, discussions on this topic have been going on.
> In short, DSA is working on a blog.debian.org machine running a Movable
> Type instance, which we could use as Debian blog. I'd like to hereby
> thank DSA for their help on this matter.
> While work is going on on that side, we have to decide how we're going
> to use it. I think this list is the right place where to decide it,
> although I apologize in advance for not having attended the publicity
> BoF (whereas I've attended the publicity *talk*), where you might have
> discussed the topic already. Either way, letting -publicity know how it
> will work would be useful.
> Barring already existing proposals, my own proposal is to handle blog
> posts similarly to how we handle the @debian account on identi.ca. That
> is, we could enable anyone to draft blog posts for blog.d.o (and sign
> them in the text or author of the post, as many "institutional" blogs
> do). Then we could require a given number of acks before going ahead and
> posting it and, possibly, enable a given number of nacks to block a post
> to go ahead. Beside of the actual numbers of acks/nacks (on which I
> welcome suggestions), what do you think of this proposal? I think it
> would allow for both transparency and collaboration on posts.

I think we should have a lower threshold for posting. Firstly, I doubt we'll get a lot of posts that would somehow contradict Debian's social contract. I think instead most DDs would prefer to post on their own blogs so I don't see a huge danger in lowering the threshold for posts. I think an ack or two from the publicity team's or press team's DDs ought to be sufficient and that might be any DD on those lists.

Nacks might remain as you propose, if something doesn't have a good deal of support maybe it isn't appropriate for the Debian blog? And perhaps something like that is better on a personal blog where it will show up in Planet.d.o anyway. So I feel a nack ought to have more weight that an ack which hopefully lowers the barrier to posting and allows Debian a bit of control over who spams the world in Debian's name. 

> I'm not sure we will ever need to have embargoed blog posts as we have
> for press releases (after all, if it is really embargoed matter, we will
> probably go for a proper press release rather than for a blog post,
> right?). But in case we will need it, I think we can do with private
> drafts on the blog platform, calling for review on this list.

Seems to be a reasonable conclusion.

> I don't know Movable Type well enough to understand how authentication
> will work, but I expect it to support different level of users and I
> guess we can handle posting access to it as we have done with identi.ca,
> i.e. starting with volunteers and enlarging on the basis of work done on
> blog posts.

Shouldn't it just plug in to Debian's LDAP? That may leave those of us who are not DDs out in the cold a bit, or forced to use another log in method, or included foo-guest logins in LDAP. Or perhaps those who want to post to Debian's blog might become a DD first? I mean, if you want to accept the responsibility of speaking for Debian you'd likely want to accept the responsibility of becoming a DD.

> In the long run, DSA is aiming at having Oauth-based authentication tied
> to Debian account (not sure if also tied to Alioth accounts, though),
> bug in the beginning we will probably need separate accounts created in
> the blogging platform.

Seems likely to me too. 


Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)


Reply to: