I kept debian-events-eu and events in the receipients list - I feel that the discussion is relevant there. I will trim the reference mail heavily. begin quotation from Luca Capello (in <[🔎] 87vcpchgy1.fsf_-_@gismo.pca.it>): > On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:50:05 +0100, Axel Beckert wrote: > > Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > >> On 12/18/2011 01:03 PM, Arne Wichmann wrote: > >> > begin quotation from Luca Capello (in <877h2jm9bv.fsf@gismo.pca.it>): > >> > I do not like the way things are handled in that mail. I do not feel that > >> > centralization is a good idea for event handling, but this is what is being > >> > done: events@debian.org is an interface in which I as non-DD can not > >> > participate in. http://wiki.debian.org/CategoryEvents is global and very > >> > unsorted and not very usable to alert me to what is happening. > > Were your feelings also influenced but how the CeBIT 2012 booth is being > organized [7]? This was the first time the Events team was contacted by > the organizers of an event, in a non-English language, so I am for any > improvements in the workflow I followed [4]. > > [7] <http://lists.debian.org/874nx0n9zh.fsf@gismo.pca.it> No, as I have decided not to paricipate in organizing this (no time, too far away, no crash space near the event) I did not devote too much attention. [...] > I structured my reply on points, it should be easier to reply. > > a) there is no Events cabal ;-) > > b) at least for those who have access to Debian machines nothing is > happening behind the scene, given that 'events@d.o' is archived on > master [8]. > [8] <http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/webwml/webwml/english/events/README?revision=1.8&view=markup> I have not. Am I the only one to which this applies? > c) I do not consider *any* wiki as official documentation, which means > that the wikipage Arne referred to [9] should not be used as such. > > [9] <http://wiki.debian.org/CategoryEvents> On the other hand, a wiki page is a good means to organise events. > d) I think there is a misunderstanding of what I wrote at [6], here the > extract of my words: > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > Submitting an event > =================== > > This is the easiest part: whenever you know of any event Debian is > present, simply send an email in English to <events@debian.org> [15]. > We will then do all the necessary steps to find someone willing to > participate/coordinate the Debian presence and announce the event to the > appropriate debian-events-* mailing lists [16][17][18][19], if not > already done. > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > As far as I read the text above, the Events team *does* not organize > an event, instead it will (or it should or, if you prefer, I think it > should): > > 1. receive notice of an event Debian will take part in. > 2. if not already present, find the main responsible for that event > (we request that for the entry in the event page [10][11]). > 3. add the event to the event page [11]. > 4. if not already done, announce the event to the (language/region- > specific) debian-events-*@ mailing list, so the *official* event > page at [11] can be used. > > [10] <http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/webwml/webwml/english/events/event.form?revision=1.10&view=markup> > [11] <http://www.debian.org/events> > > I still fail to see why/how you think that the Events team wants to > centralize how events are managed, while we try to publicize as > much/best as possible the highest number of events *through* official > channels. > > At DebConf11, during the Events BoF [12] this topic was discussed > again and I thought what I summarized in the report [13] was the > consensus drawn from the discussion, let me quote my words: My argument is: event coordination should be possible without a central instance. At the moment the workflow is: mail the event to debian-events-$locale (using suitable locale), the organizer mails that he is doing so to the same mailing list and typically creates a wiki page for further organizing. There is no human single point of failure in that workflow. Moreover the workflow works for everyone, not only DDs. I am not against informing events@d.o, though. > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > First, for the mailing list, the idea would be to still use the > already-established debian-events-$SOMETHING [13] mailing list for > coordination, with a "new" mailing list for announcement only (both > minor and major events). This should be a restricted-posting mailing > list (probably Events and Press membership only): its aim is to provide > email notifications whenever a new event is added to the website. A > parallel approach would be to duplicate the announcements on Planet > Debian, but these points must be coordinated with the Publicity team. > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > [12] <http://penta.debconf.org/dc11_schedule/events/731.en.html> > [13] <http://lists.debian.org/87fwlbctds.fsf@gismo.pca.it> > > The Events team has not started yet to use debian-news@ as the > "general" mailing list for *all* announcements [14], but from the > extract above it seems clear to me that in case Debian will gain > other *official* channels, we will use them (e.g. blog.d.o). > > [14] <http://bugs.debian.org/643647> > > > And I'm still wondering if a German-speaking debian-events-de@l.d.o > > list (like the Dutch speaking debian-events-nl@l.d.o) wouldn't be a > > good idea either. > > From an announcement POV, yet another mailing list would be a pain, > because this means that the Events team, *if not notified*, will miss > more events. Just to provide an example: Debian will be present at the > forthcoming 28C3 [15], but no one told the Events team about that, > except Paul Wise last Saturday via IRC [16] (FYI he is acting as a proxy > for us since a while). CCC organisation is as chaotic as the event (it even has chaos in its name). I do not feel that it is a good example for anything. > [15] <http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEventsDe/2011/28C3> > [16] <irc://irc.oftc.net/debian-events> > > From a coordination POV, given that as Arne wrote debian-events-eu@ is > low-traffic, I still think too much fragmentation is worthless and it > will keep away contributors. Again, just to provide an example: I do > not speak German, but I was happy to help for the Debian booth at the > Chemnitzer Linux-Tage 2011 [16]. This because everything was done > through debian-events-eu@ and not a localized mailing list. The other side of the argument is that english lists for german events are an unnecessary communication barrier. Not that I feel that this is a decisive argument. > [16] <http://lists.debian.org/87bp0rxlwq.fsf@gismo.pca.it> > > > (Cc to events@d.o, so that they are aware of this discussion in case > > they really don't follow debian-events-eu@l.d.o closely enough.) > > Thank you Axel, the *latter* is the problem: ATM the Events team has to > monitor various channels (IRC, mailing lists and planets, even > non-Debian [17]) to be aware of events, while as I see it it should be > the other way around. > > [17] <http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20111210.235459.a8d46a5b.en.html> On the other hand, I feel that the events team should read debian-events-* (at least collectively - not necessarily everyone should read every list). In the case of non-english lists a proxy might be used. So, the main question for me is, how should my future workflow look like when announcing and/or organizing an event. cu AW -- [...] If you don't want to be restricted, don't agree to it. If you are coerced, comply as much as you must to protect yourself, just don't support it. Noone can free you but yourself. (crag, on Debian Planet) Arne Wichmann (aw@linux.de)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature