[Mageia-webteam] planet.mageia.org - info/discuss about the installation

[Michael Scherer]

Le lundi 31 janvier 2011 à 16:50 +0100, Romain d'Alverny a écrit :
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:30, Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org> wrote:

> >> And yes, it has to be filtered by the Mageia topic; off-topic stuff
> >> (regarding the project as a whole, it's not only about technical
> >> stuff) should not appear in such a feed. And yes, we rely on authors
> >> benevolence in this regard.
> >
> > Well, this has to be clearly said. That's not the same policy on all
> > planet, and I think that having a tag is not enough ( see Adam W post on
> > planet Mandriva, some people have seen them too off topic, but it has a
> > tag Mandriva nonetheless ).
> 
> How do you suggest to manage it otherwise?

No, I do not say that using a tag is not good on a technical level. I
say that the definition should be IMHO clearer than "using a tag". Ie,
what do we expect on the tag.

> > Marcom, marketing or communication ?
> 
> Both.

Well, to me, this look like the job of communication more than
marketing, but maybe I mistake the purpose of the marketing team.

> > Shouldn't the board have the final say ( as one of the duty is conflict
> > management ) ?
> 
> The board always has a final say, that's a given. But that should
> still be exceptional and repeating it over and over won't entrust
> teams on themselves.

If we entrust the marketing team to do conflict management and editorial
control, it should be clearly said. If the duty is shared among the
board, the web team, the communication team, the marketing team, it may
not be so final say, and I can only foresee potential conflicts.

> > We can hardly call "community feed aggregation" a new field of
> > experimentation, given the fact that it is a common practice in free
> > software since years. And we can also take for granted that unspecified
> > things will likely be interpreted differently.
> 
> That's the interesting part; to let thing go different.

If we want to be different, then I still have my old proposal of having
a feed of feeds instead of a feed of articles. But this requires to
write lots of software, patchs and a protocol ( and not enough space in
the margin for this )

> Nonetheless, how would you act on this then? (filtering, policy for
> aggregation, etc.)

Personally, I would not do it. At least, not now. All teams are not
started, website is still at zarb, blogs also at zarb, catdap is not
announced ( and would be nice with more polish ), lots of more pressing
needs ( maintainers db, wiki ), etc.


Now, if I wanted to do it, I would still aim for having the minimal
requirement of maintainability. People ( as long they have a email
alias, ie are peers ) decide what they blog, how they blog, etc. Some
kind of wiki way applied to feed aggregations. I would even push to
delegate the feeds in ldap so people can change themselves without
anyone intervention. 


But let's pretend we should have to decide and what to filter ( because
i am pretty sure that the free-for-all POV is not universally shared ). 
 
First, I would try to clearly articulate the goal of the website. Having
"a regular stream of news about Mageia" is not the same as "discovering
the life of contributors". For example, the aforementioned chocolate
cake pictures is likely not ok if the goal is to speak only of Mageia. 

Getting the target audience is also important, and anticipate where it
should be displayed.

This allows to know if we want someone see the word fuck or not. We may
not want to have strong political comments on the frontpage of the
project ( As said, I personally wouldn't care, but I guess that's not a
universal view ).

The rest will then come by itself after that.

-- 
Michael Scherer