Re: Using the proper feed for pvanhoof

[Dave Neary <bolsh gnome org>]

Hi,

Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 22:53 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 06:15:06PM +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
>>> Could someone with access please change pvanhoof's feed for pgo to
>>> http://pvanhoof.be/blog/index.php/category/prog/feed/ please?
>> Why? He should specifically ask for it.
>>
>> I don't interpret his remark the same at all. IMO he's saying that
>> planet gnome policy is to contain everything and that people should not
>> complain to him regarding the policy of pgo.
> 
> That is indeed the right interpretation. Although I don't consider my
> own opinion about it to be of any value for decision making about this.

I had read your comment as "don't complain to me, it's not my fault".
But it is your fault, in so far as when you get signed up to planet
GNOME, you provide (or at least, I had to) a name, hackergochi and RSS
feed. At that point, you could have provided your general feed (as I
did, and as many others do) or your technology one.

Also, since being on Planet GNOME is something that people ask to do,
you are perfectly entitled to request that a different feed be used from
your blog.

> I don't mind it myself, and my personal preference is the same as the
> current active policy.  

In other words, you want all your blog posts to be syndicated, and thus
people are right to complain to you if they think some of your posts are
inappropriate for pgo (and you are, of course, free to ignore them).

> Although the policy is like how I prefer it, I don't feel responsible
> for it. Therefore shouldn't people complain to me.
> 
> I do think you can like a policy yet not feel responsible for it, and
> that fits within my philosophy about such things.

You're talking about a policy - I know of no such policy. Can you point
me to it, please? The only policy I know of is that PGO requests should
be accompanied by a blog feed and a hackergochi. Certainly, individuals
have said in the past that the diversity of pgo is one of the things
they like, but that hardly constitutes a policy.

In any case, I now more clearly understand your position on this. You
are aware that you could ask for another feed to be syndicated, but you
don't want to - perhaps because you like the effect your more
provocative posts have on people when they get a wider audience? In any
case, I think it's disingenuous of you to keep repeating the "don't
blame me, it's pgo's fault" when that's clearly not the case.

> In other words: let the maintainer keep making such decisions. Although
> I might have had the silly idea of using the foundation-list for micro
> managing pgo before, in the end I don't think it's the right strategy
> for this GNOME product. Electing a maintainer, for example, would rather
> be something for foundation-list.

"silly"? "micro-managing"? My turn to feel misunderstood & slightly
offended.

Jeff's been quiet of late, to the point where I know that one or two
others from the board have been doing some maintainership of pgo (I
don't know the amount or extent). The foundations list seemed like the
right place to bring this up in those circumstances. I suppose I could
have just mailed the board, but in the end having your (public) comment
on this is worthwhile.

Cheers,
Dave.

-- 
Dave Neary
GNOME Foundation member
bolsh gnome org