On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 03:02:17PM -0700, Larry Cafiero wrote: > Observations from a former participant who is now an outside observer: > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Olav Vitters <[email protected]> wrote: > > There are a lot of sites out there whose only intention is to cause > > controversy. This article seems exactly about that. How to deal with > > this: no clue, but IMO it has to be a positive reaction. > > Actually, Olav, it's not. Datamation has a pretty wide readership, and > agree with him or not, Bruce Byfield is a fairly well-informed > commentator and not a troll, as you imply. His commentary is not > reporting in a traditional news sense, but more of his opinion, and > agree with him or not (and he and I have had some knock-down, drag-out > discussions when we disagree), he does his homework.
I didn't imply he was a troll. I've already stated he is a troll. > > If you start responding point-by-point, you give the control to the > > person whose only intention is to spur controversy. > > Again, I disagree. I would be willing to bet that Bruce has better > things to do with his life than stir up controversy. Could you expand on this? > > I'm not sure what the right approach is, but I think you should be > > careful. It is quite easy to spin any response as e.g. 'GNOME doesn't > > like to hear the truth'. > > Arguably, there are many things in this article that GNOME folks > should ask themselves, assuming that Byfield is right in at least some > points in his commentary; to say nothing of working under the > assumption that nothing -- not even GNOME -- is perfect. One > observation right off the bat: I can't use GNOME 3 due to hardware > limitations, and personally I feel that having to use the "fallback > mode" is the digital equivalent of being forced to sit at the back of > the bus (an analogy that's probably only understood by Americans, but > for the rest of you it goes back to racial inequality in the US up to > the 1960s when non-whites had to sit in the back of the bus). I don't > think I'm the only one who feels that way. I find this comparison over the top offence. I urge you to read https://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct > > I do think something should be done about the level of inaccurate > > reporting, but just doing something could really backfire. > > > > I think it is best to give short generic statements. Maybe something > > about Files. But don't directly respond to the inaccuracies, but say > > something short that a) negates the crap indirectly b) is more about > > what GNOME wants to achieve. > > > > I'm not political enough to write such statements. But I think I can > > predict beforehand what won't work. And that is trying to have a > > discussion with sites which have no intention at all to have a > > discussion. > > Again, I don't think you're too familiar with Datamation -- if you > were, you'd probably know they're not like that. However, if you or > someone else wants to point out the errors/inaccuracies in the > article, again I say the comments section would be the place for it. You keep pointing out that I should be familiar. I just base my observations on the contents article. Reputation of some site is nice, but you're not really going into any detail. > > Think Phoronix. Almost all GNOME articles are either inaccurate or > > intentionally misleading. I think for sites which are intentionally > > misleading but furthermore get quoted by other newssites, we best do > > send out generic statements (but leave out specifics). > > I'm no fan of Phoronix -- who cares if one desktop is 0.00003ms faster > than another? -- but nevertheless they are thorough. Datamation, too, > is thorough to a large extent. So when you have those two coming out > swinging with problems and/or shortcomings with GNOME 3 or the > community, you might want to approach the problem first by looking in > a mirror before externalizing it with reaction. Arguably the solution > may be beyond the scope of the marketing group, but going at > addressing it in public responsibly -- responsibly and truthfully -- > is a fairly important step. I said that inaccurate or intentionally misleading. Or in plain word: the site lies. Your response is: 'look into the mirror'. I don't see how these thing relate. > Just an observation on a lazy Sunday afternoon. -- Regards, Olav -- marketing-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
