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

Re: [RFR] wml://News/weekly/2012/04/index.wml

On 20/02/2012 10:52 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:01:50PM +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
>> It was a serious update to old data: when I started looking the only
>> article I could remember was putting the value at US$1.9 Billion. I also
>> put this article past three other DD's days before it went public,
>> including the DPL and a previous DPL to get any concerns from them, as
>> well as the private press@d.o email list (there were none).
> FWIW, I find the fact above completely unrelated to the discussion at
> hand. In fact, I did wonder why you mailed me and press@d.o, but I've
> been nevertheless happy to provide you with some pointers to related
> work, of which I was aware due to my research activity.

I emailed as it was recommended by other DDs, and greatly appreciate the feedback (articles that I referenced in my post as alternate views). And I thank you for your feedback.

> But you did contact us making it very clear that the content was meant
> to appear on your *personal* blog. Therefore, neither me nor the press
> team (AFAIK) bother discussing --- or even thinking about --- the
> appropriateness of the content on more official Debian media.

Yes, I wrote it up for my personal blog; I don't recommend it be viewed as Debian "official" or internally produced, and I don't represent it as such.

> I'm not sure if your text mail was meant to imply otherwise. But I'm
> sure my answer would've been radically different if you had asked
> something along the lines of "what do you think of publishing this as a
> Debian Project announcement?".

You're correct, I did not envisage this as a formal Debian announcement. If you wish, in 4 months (!) when we're at release, I could re-run this analysis and get an even more up to date estimate as Wheezy goes out the door, and we could attach that information to a more formal communication. But that's another thread for a later date (just ask me and give me about 3 days to do it). :)

My point is that the implied value statement derived is not "a joke", as proposed earlier in this thread.

The debate at hand is if this current article gets referenced in DPN/DWN, which I think is an editorial decision based upon merit and newsworthiness: you may keep this current article at arms length if you wish, and I fully support and appreciate the editorial integrity of those performing the DPN/DWN task. (I wont be upset at removing from DPN/DWN.)

Anyway, enough distraction, I'll step back and let people do their good work...

/Mobile:/ +61 422 166 708, /Email:/ james_AT_rcpt.to
PLUG President 2012: http://www.plug.org.au <http//www.plug.org.au>

Reply to: