Hi there! Please do not Cc: me, I read the list. Cc:ing debconf-discuss@ and debian-publicity@ to reach a wider audience: please follow-up the discussion on a single mailing list, the correct one is IMHO debconf-discuss@, R-T and M-F-T set accordingly. Leaving the full quote for these lists. On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:20:22 +0200, Richard Darst wrote: > On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 01:03:00PM +0200, Luca Capello wrote: >> I am part of the team that is trying to organize DebConf13 in >> Switzerland and at the last meeting I volunteered to write the document >> presenting what DebConf is, what are the needs, etc.: >> >> <http://lists.debian.ch/87zkk0a3l3.fsf%40gismo.pca.it> >> <http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf13/Switzerland/minutes-20110831> >> >> I think we should re-use as much as possible previous documentation, >> this is why I am writing you as the author of some (and AFAIK the only >> one of this genre) very useful blog posts about DebConf internals: > > Another place that might be useful to check is here: > > http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/Category:DebConf_Manual > > A long term goal would be to integrate the posts into that category > somehow, or at least get them linked. +1 >> Two questions: >> >> 1) what is the license for your posts above? > > Because of the wiki merging goal above, I'll say it is the same > license as the DebConf wiki - which I can't find anywhere. I think > the a license that would make sense for the DebConf wiki would make > sense would be something compatible with the Debian wiki license, > since another long term goal would be merging the DebConf wiki into > the Debian wiki. That is a bit unclear, but I will say MIT license > for my own things since that should fulfill my goals. AFAIK there were discussions and efforts, especially IIRC by Fran Lin Piat (bcc:ed), about a full re-licensing of the Debian Wiki, but nothing is finalized yet: <http://penta.debconf.org/dc9_schedule/events/365.en.html> <http://wiki.debian.org/DebianWiki/LicencingTerms> It seems that the MIT license was the one with the biggest probability to be chosen, so you are already "compliant": <http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_MIT_License> >> 1) can I include them in a debian-conference-doc repository, which will >> be available on Alioth and maybe will end up a in a proper Debian >> package? > > Perhaps this should be the DebConf manual category on the wiki? I, > and other people, would probably help with that. So, I would suggest > you consider adding to the wiki rather than making another separate > source of documentation. With my Events hat on (Events team bcc:ed), I strongly disagree with *official* documentation available primarily on wikis, because: 1) wikis are for online users and simply leaving opened webpage for the sake of offline browsing is a non-sense IMHO. With a Debian package you simply install the package once and for all. 2) there is no way to have *fully* control on wikis, at some point or another someone can edit a page and thus someone other should fix it. This is the main advantage of a wiki, but at the same time one of its weaknesses. Remember that my first interest is in documents that should be given to prospecting sponsors & Co., something like the press coverage services done by the Publicity team. We should not oblige companies to dig into wiki pages to find the information they need to evaluate our requests. Instead, we should provide a 3-page pamphlet of what DebConf is. And as I see it, documentation of this kind should flow from offline Debian packages to wikis. Another advantage is that we could translate this documentation once and for all instead of relying on various personal translations. I know this is quite a hard task, but I think it is the right way™. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca
Attachment:
pgp8nDHvfQ6Hl.pgp
Description: PGP signature