Re: Publicity team review workflow / Re: DebConf11 ends as another success for the Debian Project
On 2011-08-05 06:21, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
On Aug 3, 2011, at 19:48, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
Should we change the workflow so that adding an announcement has to be accompanied by a mail to debian-publicity?
No. The workflow is transparent, consensus based, and flexible. It largely mirrors the way Debian works and has gone through a number of iterations and is currently producing a fairly high quality stream of press releases, weekly newsletters and updates, especially for a volunteer organization.
Is the current workflow documented?
I don't see why a new workflow would have to be less transparent,
consensus based, and even less flexible (except in the sense that it
would be heavier, indeed). Nor why it would not mirror the way Debian
works as much.
I guess the review workflow's objective is to improve the quality of
Debian's communications. How much the increase should be is hard to say.
The current workflow may give communications a fair "volunteer" quality.
But I think we have resources that would enable us to do better than a
"volunteer" quality if they are used optimally.
There is no obvious reason a reasonable person could point to that requires changing the current workflow.
I imagine the level of quality we should aim for depends on the
communication. Communications at a small conference may not need too
However, in my opinion content sent on debian-news on behalf of the
project should have a minimum quality. Would it make sense to offer
reviewing guidelines for content sent on behalf of the project? I'm
thinking of a "soft approval", an approval granted passively when a
content was (appropriately) sent for review to the publicity team and
there is no feedback for a certain time, for example 2 days. This
wouldn't be a policy, but a rule of thumb indicating that an author
truely writes on behalf of the Project. The author who followed this
guideline can say a reasonable effort was made to make sure the content
actually represents the project.
I'm not a communications person, but I suppose other organizations have