Hi,
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011, David Prévot wrote:
> It's the second time [1] such an advertisement reaches the DPN, and I
> don't find it suitable at all. I think it was a mistake the first time,
> and it would be a shame to consider the first error as a precedent. For
> the same reason we don't do sponsorship link in the official website
> main page, I believe we should not relay such campaign in the official DPN.
With my Publicity & Press hat on, I completely agree with David.
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 08:30:11AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> I don't agree with you. It all depends on the goal of the project. Any
> Debian-related project which has a goal to improve Debian (remember this
> is about getting a DFSG-free Debian book) deserve a mention.
Yes, sure it deserve a mention, but maybe is better to mention it when it
will be published and not to pre-sell copies, isn't it?
Our intent is to inform: and sure we will inform people about another
interesting and - I bet - useful piece of documentation when it will be
available. But DPN is not intended to advertise commercial project, as
the publication of your book seems to be.
> The fact that there is money involved should not be a sufficient reason
> to refuse to cover it.
>
> I don't really know what you put under "sponsorship link" but we have
> sponsorhip links at various places, and we even used to have some
> on the main web page at the time where the web mirrors were hosted
> by third parties.
No. We *had* them: as now the web mirrors are only hosted on Debian
machines, we have dropped them.
>
> The criteria should be the same "would this help us towards our
> goals?". And I think this project is clearly in the "yes" side.
>
The criteria here is: if the "donate" thingie is something correlated with the
Debian Project *officially* (as, for instance, DebConf) and the money
will go to the Debian Project, we publish it.
If not, I'm sorry but it won't find space in our *official* Newsletter.
That said, I want to add that as usual in the Debian Project, the last
word need to be the one of people who actually do the work. For this reason,
I consider David's and Alexander's opinion a little bit more relevant
than the other's one.
Cheers,
Francesca
ps: thanks David and Alexander for working on the next issue! :)
--
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect,
but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint is more
like a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey... stuff."
The Doctor