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

Re: Welcome team progress, local groups interest



On 2017-08-11 17:25, MENGUAL Jean-Philippe wrote:
> Hi,
> [...]
> Hence some questions:
> 1. Should not Welcope team have a mailing list? IRC is mainly used by
> geeks today

Maybe - I haven't felt it's indispensable so far and I prefer posting an
occasional progress report here and blend with other teams for now. I
don't know how others feel about this, it's a bit early to tell.

Having a mailing list also adds to the already high barrier that IRC is
for new users (and team members). I'd love to explore ways to ease
transition into new ways to reach wider audiences while including our
older ways.

> 2. Should not Debian have an official Facebook group, to reach another
> kind of users? Idem for other social networks.


There is a Debian Facebook group with ~300K followers/likes, and a
Twitter account too. If you're interested you will certainly find them.
Their content is shared from current posts in Micronews as I understand
it, mostly automatically.

There was mention of that during the Publicity BoF. Although I agree we
can't ignore such channels, our efforts are best used in improving
current resources and content - for example having regular Debian
Project news which we worked on yesterday. I am only interested in
relaying content there, but not in making such social media primary
channels (specially not "official").

One idea I presented consisted of regularly indicating on such channels
were the source information comes from and why it's not a primary
channel, here is an example:
https://framasphere.org/posts/3672202

If you have ideas on how to improve this while not encouraging the use
of non-free software (which all such social media includes as
javascript, for example) and restricted / censored content, it would be
appreciated in the publicity team I am sure. Thanks for the reminder
that it remains an issue to be addressed.

F.

-- 
Fabián Rodríguez
http://magicfab.ca/fsf


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: