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

Re: Fund raising advertisement on the DPN


Le 03/11/2011 10:21, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl a écrit :
> Am 02.11.2011 19:27, schrieb David Prévot:

>>> 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.
> Okay.
> 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?

These three points are not News for the DPN [0], and we should not even
have to discuss if it's worth mentioning them again: we don't do that,
we only sometime edit a follow up if something new pops up.

	0: http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2010/09/#free

We could discuss if we should have or not relayed that information last
year, but as Alexander already pointed: “Well, we can't change what we
did back then.”

> d) The two raising money to do that?

Even if that was already partly covered in the initial article [0], the
status update on this topic is the only new piece of information, and as
such, could maybe have deserved a mention in the DPN. Just in case I was
previously misunderstood: I strongly object to see it covered again
inside the DPN.

>> 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'm sorry, reading back this part I can see why it could be
misinterpreted. “You” in the first sentence was indeed referring to
Alexander and to the press team as a whole. The second sentence was more
about the external (different) recognition of these groups' decisions.

> I take it that you think we/I don't consider your opinion/veto?

I was partly referring to Raphaël's behavior on this thread. Sending
numerous messages on this list about this topic sounds highly
inappropriate: presenting himself as “a regular contributor of the
publicity team” while being obviously in conflict of interest, and
“wonder[ing] what's the proper way to escalate this” really looks like
the do-ocracy can be respected on one side (press team decision), but
needs to be bypassed on the other (for the exact same topic).

> 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).

Deciding directly between the actors, and not in a public place like
this one may also have been an advantage to find a quicker consensus. Of
course, if concerned people all go in the same direction, there is not
much to argue anyway.

Having the discussion in a public place is a good thing, since it allows
people to share their point of view, and to give advice, but seems to
make it a bit more difficult to take a final decision when external
people wants to lobby for a specific decision. The blurry line of the
publicity team (who is a member, who is not) doesn't seems to help here.
When Stefano “encourage[s] the people regularly doing DPN to decide”,
that's more in line with the do-ocracy. I'm not advocating private
discussion, but it could have been less “annoying/demotivating” if
non-regular editors of the DPN had been less active on this thread.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: