19:59:54 <larjona> #startmeeting
19:59:54 <MeetBot> Meeting started Sun Nov  8 19:59:54 2015 UTC.  The chair is larjona. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:59:54 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
20:00:05 <larjona> Welcome everybody to this Debian Publicity Team meeting!
20:00:15 <larjona> Agenda is here: https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Publicity/Meetings/2015-11-08
20:00:25 <larjona> #topic Roll call + welcome new contributors
20:00:37 <larjona> Who's here? Say hello or something. If it's your first time in the meeting, welcome! Please introduce yourself
20:00:46 * larjona is here
20:00:57 <jipege1> hi
20:01:17 <ana> hi
20:01:22 <indiebio> hi
20:01:50 <zobel> hi
20:02:31 <tvincent> hi!
20:02:43 <cnote> hi
20:04:47 <jova2> hello, its my first time in the meeting, I'm Brazilian and would like to help the team
20:04:58 <larjona> welcome jova2!!
20:05:34 <ana> welcome jova2!
20:05:41 <larjona> General info about the team and the different resources we manage is in  https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Publicity
20:05:47 <larjona> anybody else?
20:06:11 <larjona> ok, let's go with next topic
20:06:14 <larjona> #topic Publishing workflow - proposals
20:06:27 <larjona> I've tried to summarize the different ideas of last weeks here:
20:06:27 <larjona> https://lists.debian.org/debian-publicity/2015/11/msg00004.html
20:06:42 * cnote reading
20:06:43 <larjona> #link https://lists.debian.org/debian-publicity/2015/11/msg00004.html
20:07:28 <larjona> basically there are people that are mostly fine with current workflow, and people that have problems.
20:08:09 <larjona> I've tried the proposed workflow but I'm not sure it's helpful for others
20:09:05 <larjona> So I would propose that people feeling not comfortable with current workflow raises hand,
20:09:05 <larjona> points to the problems they find, and their proposed solutions (wether one of the proposals present in the mail, or other)
20:09:44 <cnote> I liked the concept on paper, but the execution puts us back to the same point we were trying to avoid (IMHO) of delaying the news
20:10:17 <cnote> The methods are sound but it introduces too many delays.
20:10:25 <cnote> Especially on the social media fronts.
20:10:39 <cnote> So, I've back tracked somewhat on it.
20:11:15 <cnote> I do admit that the old method of IRC ACK/DENT was not perfect however, but for quick news stuff it did work.
20:11:36 <larjona> Everybody is OK with keeping the IDEAS file for DPN? maybe we can edit it when somebody picks an idea en begins to work on it, adding their nick , and that's all
20:12:35 <ana> yeah, that was the old workflow, we only renamed the file name :)
20:12:59 <cnote> I'm good with the IDEAS file. :)
20:13:04 <larjona> then, the proposals for microblogging go here in the IRC channel, not to the IDEAS file, isn't it?
20:14:08 <cnote> I think we have to separate the outside media from the internal media.
20:14:37 <larjona> (I had problems with that part, but now that I installed quassel, I have logs of this channel everytime, and I can trigger a reminder on words "DRAFT", for example, and review/post  when I'm available
20:14:52 <larjona> cnote I don't understand "outside media/inside media"
20:15:08 <cnote> We don't officially support g+, twitter, etc... so having them in our workflow (and out of our control) seems to work counter productive.
20:16:12 <larjona> Ok so the workflow would cover Pump.io only (@debian at identi.ca) and the people controlling the non-official channels are free to follow the identi.ca feed and post at their will. Agree?
20:16:19 <cnote> Yes
20:16:22 <ana> yes
20:17:14 <jova2> yes
20:17:53 <larjona> And do you think we should post in identi.ca/pump.io more often? I always doubt if we could "burn out" topics for DPN or bits.debian.org
20:18:31 <larjona> (for example, links to some posts in planet.debian.org)
20:19:08 <larjona> or the events (too bad we didn't microblog about Cambridge MiniDebConf, for example!)
20:19:11 <ana> larjona: not everybody follows all the channels. I feel people following identi.ca/pump.io learns how to filter too
20:19:54 <larjona> ana That means that you are fine with posting in identi.ca more often?
20:20:37 <ana> yes. i find the only problem with have with identi.ca is not a lot of people proposing stuff and how hard is sometimes to make a nice dent in 140 chars
20:20:49 <ana> s/with have/we have/ sorry
20:20:54 <larjona> (I could, for example, propose a DRAFT every day), I think
20:21:13 <larjona> OTOH, reminder: pump.io has no char limit. But I think that keeping it short is fine
20:22:23 <larjona> I mean, I don't mind to take the IDEAS file and propose DRAFTS for identi.ca, every day (I'm in pump.io almost every day)
20:22:36 <cnote> So here is the oddity in that. How many people actually follow identi.ca?
20:22:43 <larjona> wait
20:23:22 <madduck> mightn't there be a way to have a bot relay identi.ca to here?
20:23:23 <larjona> supossedly we have 1269 followers, but I suppose many of them are dead accounts from the old StatusNet days
20:23:41 <larjona> madduck I think it's possible, I'll look at it
20:23:55 <larjona> #action larjona will look about how to make pump.io -> irc
20:24:28 <ana> what's the advantage of having pump.io relayed here?
20:24:51 <larjona> avoid opening a web tab, or a pump.io client, I suppose
20:24:58 <madduck> no…
20:25:16 <madduck> pump.io could become our default news outlet and we just post stuff there and people pick it up here rather than this ACK workflow
20:25:25 <madduck> just an idea anyway
20:25:56 <larjona> madduck but I think it's good to have ACK *before* posting to identi.ca
20:26:14 <indiebio> madduck: an idea about pump.io and twitter etc ... not sure about the mechanics
20:26:38 <indiebio> so we don't endorse twitter etc, but that is where a large untapped audience is ...
20:26:45 <cnote> ^^
20:26:50 <larjona> Or we prefer that the people filling the IDEAS file just post directly in identi.ca the ideas?
20:26:57 <indiebio> could we post stuff on pump.io, and then 'retweet' that to the otehr channels?
20:27:04 <larjona> we can automate pump.io -> twitter if we want
20:27:09 <madduck> indiebio: sure!
20:27:18 <indiebio> so it makes it into the world-at-large, but it always has the link to the preferred place
20:27:35 <larjona> lots of people do (debianers and non debianers). There are libraries (free software) allowing that
20:27:56 <cnote> To accomodate it all we post to identi.ca and the controllers of the other media sources pull from there.
20:28:17 <madduck> regarding acks on pump.io: I am thinking in circles maybe. I am clearly of the faction of people who dislike the current workflow, but I am also not really able to commit time to this team, so sorry for holding you up…
20:28:39 <indiebio> I feel realle at odds with not posting to twitter and facebook, as we do want to spread the word about FLOSS to people who are mainstream. and 'not endorsing' sounds very aloof, not good. but if there could be a link, that would pique people's curiosity without alienating them.
20:29:21 <indiebio> cool, this makes me feel relieved :)
20:29:31 <larjona> I would prefer that people focus in the workflow for posting to pump.io (since somebody has an idea, until this is posted to pump). Once the note is posted in pump.io, there are lots of helpers (scripts, etc) to relay to the other channels
20:29:59 <madduck> larjona: so just to get this right…
20:30:15 <madduck> we'd post to pump.io at higher frequency and even before we put stuff on bits.d.o?
20:30:22 <madduck> and then post to pump.io again with the bits.d.o link?
20:30:52 <larjona> the bits.d.o -> pump thing can also be changed.
20:31:25 <larjona> I'm ok posting in pump at higher frequency, and also reposting when things are written in DPN/bits (because we link to "our" stuff, not an external source any more)
20:31:55 <larjona> what about the rest?
20:32:03 <cnote> I'm confused.
20:32:14 <ana> me too
20:32:32 <larjona> ok, let's give an example
20:33:14 <larjona> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/publicity/dpn.git/tree/IDEAS has an idea about mini debconf in brazil
20:33:53 <larjona> we could post it in pump.io ASAP, and then, let the normal discussion about if posting in DPN or bits, etc
20:34:02 <larjona> the pump.io note would be very short
20:34:12 <madduck> cnote, ana: the problem with bits/DPN is that they are slow media due to the nice editorial work you do. If we identify a story to be published there, we should still be writing about it elsewhere on quicker media, or else the world knows it all anywyay and not from us by the time we publish the artcile.
20:34:58 <madduck> so the suggestion might be that we focus on pump.io and push everything there (after the ACK cycle), and then we *pull* interesting stories from there and turn them into bits/DPN etc.
20:35:03 <madduck> tweets
20:35:09 <ana> there isn't any problem in publishing things in pump.io and later in bits.d.o or DPN
20:35:10 <madduck> just make sure to get the news out ASAP first
20:35:21 <ana> and it's ok if they get redented or repeated
20:35:26 <madduck> right
20:35:27 <larjona> ana That's what I wanted to hear!
20:36:10 <cnote> So the shorter news (the ASAP) news goes to identi.ca, then the other social controllers pick it up from there. In the meantime the DPN posts the same information but more in depth?
20:36:14 <ana> they are completely different channels, not everybody follows all of them, and people in the most "spammy" channels learn how to filter (or leave that channel)
20:36:27 <larjona> so anybody against posting in pump quick notes (DRAFT - ACK - post), more often, most of the news? and for the important ones, we'd also write DPN or bits
20:36:54 <ana> larjona: np except when it's an special announcement that we must push first in bits.d.o or via a press release
20:37:30 <larjona> fine, since we always request ACK in the IRC channel, no dangers
20:37:35 <madduck> ana: the problem with such "special announcements" is that the news leak before we manage to write a PR or bits article
20:38:00 <madduck> twitter was full of "debian stable released" news and "DPL elected" hours/days before we even pushed a story
20:38:01 <larjona> madduck I think that is unavoidable in some cases
20:38:02 <ana> madduck: yes, it happens, Such is life.
20:38:13 <madduck> well, at least we should have pushed the dent before! ;)
20:38:16 <cnote> madduck: I think we unfortunately have to accept that unless its something sent to press@d.o and kept offline.
20:38:30 <indiebio> twitter for thinking people means no knee-jerk, I don't think it's a problem to be a bit late on that.
20:38:35 <cnote> Most of our discussions are all public.
20:38:53 <madduck> then there is no gain in withholding news until we wrote longer articles
20:39:20 <cnote> And just to add more confusion to this: Do we really need the ACK part of the process other than for spelling/grammar checks?
20:39:21 <madduck> what I am trying to say is: whenever we hear *anything*, we should push it to identi.ca and then figure out where else…
20:39:49 <madduck> cnote: … and spelling/grammar errors on identi.ca aren't so bad anyway.
20:40:00 <madduck> some people like to get acks
20:40:08 <madduck> but should we require them?
20:40:31 <cnote> The acks work for people popping in the channel, but not for us who have access to the account.
20:40:38 <cnote> I consider it to be more of a delay.
20:41:29 * ana nods
20:42:06 * larjona prefers ACKs and confess that sometimes is not sure if ACK'ing or not... not so brave
20:42:13 <madduck> we all exercise care when posting there, and even if a story goes out that would not have been acked, it's not the end of the world.
20:42:34 <madduck> we are trying to spread news, not enact an elaborate PR strategy
20:43:03 <cnote> identi is such a small user output base that I don't think we need to be super careful as opposed to the other media outlets...that we don't control anyway.
20:43:38 <cnote> madduck: we are trying to enact a PR strategy, this is the face of Debian. :)
20:43:51 <larjona> I'll give another example: I proposed to automatically post the planet.debian.org feed to identi.ca, and it was rejected. Now I doubt about individual posts. When pabs proposes, I always ACK, because I trust him, But I don't trust myself.
20:44:05 <cnote> larjona: I trust you.
20:44:42 <larjona> but if you trust me, I would post all the posts in planet.d.o, and some people expressed their concerns about that
20:45:01 <ana> that would be spammy and plenty of things in planet.d.o are not about debian
20:45:01 <larjona> That's why I prefer individual ACKs
20:46:03 <cnote> I understand where you are coming from, but think you also have an idea of things that further the project vs something that someone thought was cool.
20:46:22 <larjona> OTOH, we could post all the reproducible builds-related posts in the planet, automatically, and then, don't mention them in DPN
20:47:09 <cnote> We need them in DPN much like the LTS stuff as fillers, and they are quarterly/bi-weekly reports which we need for the reporting section.
20:47:20 <larjona> ok
20:47:23 <cnote> And this comes from someone who thinks that we over-report the LTS stuff.
20:47:54 <cnote> Unfortunately at this point we do need that information to publish, and I don't think its identi/social news TBQH
20:47:55 <larjona> so we agree that for the people having ability to post to pump, no ACK is needed?
20:48:27 <cnote> I agree. But removing the need to ACK should not stop someone from asking for an ACK/Review.
20:48:39 <cnote> But it would remove one of the workflow obsticles.
20:48:42 <ana> yeah, we can agree that no ACK is needed but dropping the line by here at the same time is very welcome
20:49:07 <ana> and what cnote said, when you think it could be controversial, just ask :)
20:49:10 <larjona> #agree  for the people having ability to post to pump, no ACK is needed
20:49:28 <larjona> ok anything else from workflow?
20:49:41 <cnote> Just a clarification
20:50:08 <cnote> For the social media it is: Identi > (g+, twitter).
20:50:25 <cnote> Later if the item needs more information we touch on it again in the DPN?
20:50:37 <larjona> yes
20:50:43 <cnote> ok
20:51:10 <larjona> #agree we'll post more frequently in pump, and revisiting items in DPN or bits for the topics we find are worthwhile
20:51:17 <cnote> Also, going back a few meetings on the items in the DPN. Everyone is encouraged to do a paragraph for the DPN and not just drop links into the file.
20:51:39 <cnote> Not that we don't want the links, but if everyone does 1 paragraph we can turn out a lot faster.
20:51:54 <larjona> #agree the people handling the non official media can look at the identi.ca feed and then post at will in their media (twitter, fb, g+, gnusocial...)
20:52:04 <larjona> thanks cnote
20:52:11 <larjona> ok, let's move
20:52:14 <larjona> #topic Debian in the Field
20:52:29 <larjona> This was proposed for spreading the word about Debian users, linked to DebConf16
20:52:29 <larjona> organization/promotion, but it was in line with our intention to revitalize bits.debian.org
20:52:41 <larjona> So Bernelle Verster from debconf16 team (indiebio here) and me, prepared some drafts:
20:52:41 <larjona> #link https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/publicity/bits.git/tree/content/2015/dif.md
20:52:41 <larjona> This post explains the new "Debian in the Field" section in the blog (maybe needs review/expansion)
20:52:41 <larjona> #link https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/publicity/bits.git/tree/content/2015/dif-2015-10-honingklip.md
20:52:41 <larjona> This one would be the first one of the series
20:52:57 <larjona> And we added some directions for people willing to send new submissions in the wiki:
20:52:57 <larjona> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Publicity/bits.debian.org#Debian_in_the_Field
20:53:23 <larjona> We would like to know the publicity team opinion about publishing this; if you see it ok,
20:53:23 <larjona> we can send it to debconf-team too, and probable ensure some continuity (monthly posts, maybe?)
20:53:23 <larjona> during DebConf16 organization, and hopefully continue in coordination with DebConf17 team, etc.
20:54:24 <larjona> Comments?
20:54:45 <ana> it seems good :)
20:54:55 <cnote> wfm
20:55:50 <larjona> indiebio? Sorry if you had prepared the presentation of the topic! :s
20:56:29 <indiebio> not at all larjona :D I'm happy. I wanted to ask have we resolved the disclaimer text? but I think we did
20:56:48 <cnote> I emailed on that! :)
20:57:01 <larjona> cnote,you and me answered in the mailing list agreeing on the same wording, so I committed it to the file
20:57:19 <indiebio> I've been meaning to get some more field posts out, but things have been busy. I am fine with others also submitting these posts, obviously.
20:57:54 <larjona> ok, so I think we can leave this as agreed, and let debconf-team decide the date of postings?
20:58:03 <indiebio> And then larjona and I talked about how this is similar/different to Debian users. We agreed they are different, but I think we could look to the users page for inspiration on the DiF posts...
20:58:54 <indiebio> cool. I would like these to have monthly or more often posting, and in twitter etc linking to the showcased people/organisations, if they have a social media profile, to generate retweets and wider interest.
20:59:05 <indiebio> would that be a problem?
20:59:18 <larjona> Yes, I think it's better to let the "Who uses Debian" audit finish, and post in bits.debian.org, and maybe later, with no hurry, the website team can think about  'modernizing' the who uses debian sections
20:59:40 <indiebio> cnote is wfm = wait for me?
20:59:50 <cnote> indiebio: Works For Me.
20:59:56 <indiebio> cool thanks
21:00:03 <cnote> regarding the users section with the DIF stuff I agree on it.
21:00:08 <larjona> indiebio bits.debian.org are (right now) automatically posted in identi.ca. The twitter people can take that and reword at will
21:00:09 <indiebio> obvious in retrospect :)
21:00:44 <cnote> I had wanted, some time ago, to move the users section up on the webpage with testimonials, etc.. but started on the audit first.
21:01:09 <cnote> So when we finish the audit, I'll try to pull you 2 for that if possible. But thats more www than publicity.
21:01:14 <indiebio> larjona: debconf twitter description should have identi.ca in it then.
21:01:15 * cnote tables discussion
21:01:30 <indiebio> "Neither DebConf nor Debian endorse Twitter, tweets, or retweets." is of no use if it doesn't suggest an alternative.
21:02:12 <larjona> indiebio the twits can link directly to bits.debian.org, and mention the company/orgs handlers, and have hashtags
21:02:42 <indiebio> larjona: sure, I mean in the description of the twitter handle. not the way it works
21:02:55 <larjona> ah, ok
21:03:36 <larjona> I didn't know about that. IMHO yes, they should point to the official channel, but that's up to the people managing those accounts.
21:04:22 <larjona> ok, anything else about debian in the field?
21:04:32 <indiebio> ok. when I figure out pump.io I'll take that further.
21:04:39 <larjona> Can we extend the meeting 10 more minutes?
21:04:55 <cnote> sure
21:05:02 <larjona> #topic Debian Style Guide - 'Debian inside' icon
21:05:10 <larjona> I don't know anything about this
21:05:16 <indiebio> I put this there,
21:05:19 <ana> neither I do
21:05:24 <larjona> go indiebio
21:05:41 <indiebio> it links to what tammy said at the sprint at DebConf15, about having a 'style guide for Debian'
21:06:06 <indiebio> you can see the style guide for DebConf16 here to see what we mean: https://wiki.debconf.org/upload/6/61/Style_guide_converted_to_paths.pdf
21:07:18 <indiebio> more pertinently, we are busy with a open hardware box, the ShowMeBox concept we hope to link with DebConf16 (https://wiki.debian.org/ShowMeBox) and we wanted a way to showcase that it was running Debian inside (to take liberally from the Intel inside thing)
21:07:26 <indiebio> so I was wondering how to go about that.
21:07:41 <ana> I think it would be nice having something like that in Debian but I don't feel it's something in the scope of the publicity team
21:07:50 <larjona> about the style guide, I think there is a style guide for the website
21:07:55 <indiebio> This was during a discussion about designing a logo for the ShowMeBox, but we realised we don't want a logo for that, we want to promote Debian.
21:08:12 <indiebio> ana: do you know if there is someone/a team in whose scope it would be?
21:08:13 <larjona> (just that I don't know where is it documented, and since it's already implemented, didn't care about that)
21:08:23 <ana> indiebio: part of it falls on the trademark team
21:08:36 <indiebio> My personal opinion is that it's probably taken care of
21:09:09 <indiebio> ana: who can I contact to get in touch with the trademark team please?
21:09:30 <larjona> there is this https://www.debian.org/logos/
21:09:34 <ana> indiebio: bgupta and richih. You should know both of them already
21:09:55 <indiebio> I've seen that, thanks larjona, that is the start of it, it goes a bit further than that.
21:09:58 <indiebio> ana: thanks
21:10:44 <indiebio> This isn't a big thing as we could work with that logo page larjona just linked to. I just jotted it down in case there's something someone wanted to say about it :)
21:11:05 <bgupta> policy is pretty liberal.. haven't read backchat, but many uses are allowed https://www.debian.org/trademark#policy review it and email trademark@d.o if you need help.
21:11:14 <indiebio> thanks bgupta
21:11:53 <larjona> About the "style guide", I'm almost sure there is an open bug about design of the website (maybe more than one bug), The problem is that nobody had time/will to send a comprenhensive proposal (it's a lot of work)
21:12:50 <larjona> I think that for style guide the best is to join the Designers mailing list https://wiki.debian.org/Design
21:12:56 <indiebio> larjona: in the beginning I felt that this was a big thing, but actually, Debian is a very technical project, and I don't think it needs to be so swish. It takes a while to get used to, but that is just how it is.
21:13:20 <ana> indiebio: it's big in the sense you have different teams to involve
21:13:31 <larjona> I have in my TODO to review the bug list in www.debian.org and post the interesting bugs in the designers list, so maybe somebody can help on that
21:13:52 <larjona> Anything else on this?
21:14:19 <indiebio> thanks all, I got what I needed here
21:14:30 <larjona> ok,
21:14:43 <indiebio> by the way, off topic, I can't subscribe to pump.io because it's hanging "waiting for urmf.net". should I try again later?
21:15:05 <larjona> indiebio I can help on that later
21:15:14 <indiebio> ok
21:15:19 <larjona> I think we can finish the meeting?
21:15:32 <cnote> The press/pub wiki pages need updating.
21:16:06 <larjona> #action larjona will review/update the wiki pages of the team, but any help is welcome too :)
21:16:16 <larjona> Anything else?
21:16:38 <cnote> More help needed on the DPN.
21:17:01 <larjona> I have to put that in my weekly routine. Will try!
21:17:02 <cnote> As I mentioned earlier a paragraph or two would be great from anyone with access or the ability to email.
21:17:21 <cnote> Did we get any feedback on the new new DPN? What are peoples thoughts on seeing it in print the first issue?
21:17:22 <larjona> ok!
21:17:38 <larjona> we got some feedback in the list
21:18:35 <larjona> I think people are expecting some movement in bits.debian.org too, and in identi.ca. We got some more identi.ca followers
21:18:46 <cnote> Good
21:19:05 <cnote> larjona: do you still want to rename the 'More than just bits' section?
21:19:38 <larjona> it was "more than just code". I have no better proposal, if I find a better one I'll tell
21:19:53 <cnote> ok
21:20:35 <larjona> 16 followers in the last 15 days
21:20:43 <larjona> ok, so let's close
21:20:46 <larjona> Thanks everybody for attending
21:20:46 <larjona> It's still weekend, let's dance a bit
21:20:46 <larjona> 
21:20:46 <larjona> \o7  \o/   o7  \o
21:20:46 <larjona> |    |   /|    |7
21:20:48 <larjona> >\  / l   )\  /(
21:20:53 <larjona> and
21:20:57 <larjona> #endmeeting