Re: Fund raising advertisement on the DPN
Am 02.11.2011 19:27, schrieb David Prévot:
>> Apparently there is demand for Debian books
> It's not as if none were already available  (maybe this page needs
> update, and I'm pretty sure the @debian.org email addresses should be
> avoided there as in consulting , hint for the doc team, web team or
> any volunteer who could propose patches).
> 1: http://www.debian.org/doc/books
> 2: http://www.debian.org/consultants/info
FWIW: Looking at that page, I see a lot of books about past releases,
two ("Debian GNU/Linux Desktop Survival Guide"¹ and Debian GNU/Linux
Anwenderhandbuch) which seem to be about past releases, but not yet
marked as such, and the french book being under discussion.
>> Okay, let's try it that way: Do you, David, could think of a
>> formulation, that you would find acceptable for the DPN?
> It's not the formulation (the form) that I'm worried about, I'm strongly
> opposed to the substance (the content) of a such nature announcement.
What part of the content are you opposed too:
a) The two translating their book?
b) The two calling their book a "bestseller"?
c) The two trying to free the book?
d) The two raising money to do that?
Assuming that a) and b) are okay and looking at  it seems that the
"base funding" was reached. So we the book will be translated (Correct
me, if I'm wrong, Raphael). So we could inform about that, couldn't we?
We could even use the opportunity and include a "call for action" to
help us update the book list. Hastily written example, which of course
would need to be written properly:
Raphael and Roland are about to translate their Debian book to English.
(Maybe some information who the main target group of the book is.) They
also try to release it under a free license [link to 2]. In related
news: Our book list is outdated, please help us update it. (Some
blubber on how to do that.)
Written that way it's information, but neither endorsement nor
advertisement, isn't it?
> You already agreed within the press team to not relay such initiative
> via a Debian press release (our DPL even strongly objected to it). The
> DPN is not as formal as a press release, but I fail to understand why
> strong objections already expressed by some current editors of the DPN
> should be considered as arguable while it's OK to refuse when strong
> objections are expressed within the press team.
Sorry, but I don't understand your second sentence. Could you please
rephrase that, if the following doesn't address your point?
I take it that you think we/I don't consider your opinion/veto? As a
matter of fact we do! If I was not interested in your opinion, I
wouldn't discuss with you, would I?
And actually we do the very same in this thread, what the press team did
back then, when it was contacted by Raphael: The press team discussed
and came to a consensus, and now the publicity team discusses the matter
and tries to find a consensus. The only difference is that the press
team found its consensus quicker than the publicity team (which isn't a
surprise given that it's smaller and the active part³ of the press team
lives in the same household).
> As initially pointed in my first message on this subject, I think it was
> a mistake to relay the initial market research , and being part of
> the advertising fund raising campaign (or whatever politically correct
> name one can invent to replace that) already flooding planet would make
> Debian an accomplice of this marketing campaign, and as an active editor
> of DPN, I would prefer veto on that.
Well, we can't change what we did back then. More important to get the
issue discussed properly now :)
> P.-S.: You may not advertise your WWW pages, or cause another person to
> advertise it, by techniques that would be classified as abuse if they
> were carried out from a Debian Account. This includes, but is not
> limited to, bulk emailing and excessive news posting.
As said: There's a difference between informing about something and
advertising something. And we try to stay on the right side.
1: That's kind of strange; while the page says "Printed September 14,
2011" copyright information says "1995-2006" and a quick glance over the
content seem to indicate the book to be outdated (and partly dubious; I
found a hint to add unstable to the sources.list), too.
3: As you know things have changed since then, as we have more members
in the team and are "bound to latency of electronic communication" ;)