Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN
Is there a good reason for sending this to -dev? You basically complain about the way the GWN authors handled the issue, so why do you tell it all the devs? It seems a bit like a lame attempt to blame them in public for their faults. Other than that, I agree with you. -- Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN
On Monday, 28. November 2005 12.30, Simon Stelling wrote: Is there a good reason for sending this to -dev? Because he wanted to let users know of corrections? At least the ones who care. As for the original issue, isn't this the policy and how it has always been in fact? Back in earlier days (in just early days we did not have GWN :)) everybody that I know of was contacted, well I even so pings on -dev by GWN people asking for an interview :). George -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 12:46:47PM +0100, George Shapovalov wrote: On Monday, 28. November 2005 12.30, Simon Stelling wrote: Is there a good reason for sending this to -dev? Because he wanted to let users know of corrections? At least the ones who care. Exactly. Regards, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd pgpTaaXTC81r2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:48:01 +0100 Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | A friend of mine just alerted me to the fact, that I am featured in | this weeks Gentoo Weekly News. Odd, I thought, noone had asked me | anything regarding the GWN... Not the first time this has happened... | I suggest that in the future, all developers who are directly quoted | in the GWN are contacted prior to posting the quotes. I realize that | this will put a bit more work load on the GWN authors, but it should | be as simple as sending a mail with the relevant section quoted for | the developer to accept. Also, why not bring back the post to -core requirement? Make it a rule that it can't be labelled as an official Gentoo publication unless it gets some review... -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (The one that looks before leaping) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 17:54 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:48:01 +0100 Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | A friend of mine just alerted me to the fact, that I am featured in | this weeks Gentoo Weekly News. Odd, I thought, noone had asked me | anything regarding the GWN... Not the first time this has happened... Not the first time that people whine. Meh. | I suggest that in the future, all developers who are directly quoted | in the GWN are contacted prior to posting the quotes. I realize that | this will put a bit more work load on the GWN authors, but it should | be as simple as sending a mail with the relevant section quoted for | the developer to accept. Also, why not bring back the post to -core requirement? Make it a rule that it can't be labelled as an official Gentoo publication unless it gets some review... Why not bring back the the GWN is a community thing and YOU can also contribute!!! mentality? That Ulrich and I have made some suboptimal decisions in the past is a fact, but why aren't there more contributors to the GWN so that we two aren't single points of failure? /me returns to lurking in some dark caves -- Stand still, and let the rest of the universe move signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:46:57 +0100 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 17:54 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:48:01 +0100 Henrik Brix Andersen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | A friend of mine just alerted me to the fact, that I am featured | | in this weeks Gentoo Weekly News. Odd, I thought, noone had asked | | me anything regarding the GWN... | | Not the first time this has happened... | | Not the first time that people whine. Meh. Yes, surprisingly enough people tend to get upset when they're misquoted and have their views utterly misrepresented in something which most users think is an official Gentoo publication. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (The one that looks before leaping) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN
Patrick Lauer wrote: Also, why not bring back the post to -core requirement? Make it a rule that it can't be labelled as an official Gentoo publication unless it gets some review... Why not bring back the the GWN is a community thing and YOU can also contribute!!! mentality? That Ulrich and I have made some suboptimal decisions in the past is a fact, but why aren't there more contributors to the GWN so that we two aren't single points of failure? That doesn't justify the reasoning of misquoting him. This could have been caught if it would have been sent to -core like its been done in the past. How can we contribute if you don't post what you're going to send before you send it? Cheers- -- Lance Albertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- GPG Public Key: http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN
| I suggest that in the future, all developers who are directly quoted | in the GWN are contacted prior to posting the quotes. I realize that | this will put a bit more work load on the GWN authors, but it should | be as simple as sending a mail with the relevant section quoted for | the developer to accept. Also, why not bring back the post to -core requirement? Make it a rule that it can't be labelled as an official Gentoo publication unless it gets some review... Why not bring back the the GWN is a community thing and YOU can also contribute!!! mentality? That Ulrich and I have made some suboptimal decisions in the past is a fact, but why aren't there more contributors to the GWN so that we two aren't single points of failure? E...since when did the number of people working on the GWN have anything to do with horribly misquoting somebody's blog? Are you suggesting there is a critical number of folks working on the GWN which will automagically prevent this sort of thing from happening? Sorry, I don't buy that. The issue here is that Brix was never contacted to review the GWN content prior to having his blog publically twisted into inaccurate bullshit. -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:46:57 +0100 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why not bring back the the GWN is a community thing and YOU can also contribute!!! mentality? Release early, release often? JeR -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Misquoted in the GWN
On 28-11-2005 18:54:14 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:46:57 +0100 Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 17:54 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:48:01 +0100 Henrik Brix Andersen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | A friend of mine just alerted me to the fact, that I am featured | | in this weeks Gentoo Weekly News. Odd, I thought, noone had asked | | me anything regarding the GWN... | | Not the first time this has happened... | | Not the first time that people whine. Meh. Yes, surprisingly enough people tend to get upset when they're misquoted and have their views utterly misrepresented in something which most users think is an official Gentoo publication. Being quoted: ok Being misquoted: very bad Having an unofficial Gentoo publication on official Gentoo infrastructure: priceless. Seriously: reading the blog entry, I made more or less the same conclusions as the GWN author, but the problem is just that the blog item was rephrased and made 'stronger', whereas the official blog was very careful in wording. (Possibly an attempt by the GWN author to make it more easily readable?) This was just wrong because it was not agreed on with the respective author, hence resulted in this thread. GWN authors need to be a bit more careful with this I think. However, I don't think that GWN authors should need permissions to grab exact quotes which are to be found elsewhere publicly available on the web. It is just sad to see that (what I assume to be) a running out of time and having no content issue results in such unpleasant misquote for the respective quoted person. One can criticise the use of newspapers, but somehow they seem to be useful for many people. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
