Proposal Guidelines for News Items

[Sharan-F]

Hi Everyone

I've created a page on the Wiki with the proposal suggested by Scott. I think this topic has been discussed in depth quite a lot lately – so I'd like to suggest that we try and finalise it so that it's clear for everyone going forward.

Here's the link the the page with the proposal for news items. http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/iwfi

If anyone is opposed to adopting these guidelines then please speak up.

On the other hand if everyone is happy to adopt this then I'd like to suggest the following:

1. the page (or content) is moved to somewhere secure as you wont want anyone to overwrite or delete, what's been agreed
2. a link from the news section be made to the page content.

Let's see if we can get this issue solved and get back to what we all do best - OFBiz!

I'm happy to get any feedback on this.

Thanks
Sharan

[David E. Jones-2]

A couple of quick points:

1. a solution to this has already started, see Tim's recent commit and issue about the main page
2. proposals like this would generally not be adopted by lack of dissent, but rather by consent or positive vote

-David


On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:34 PM, Sharan-F wrote:

>
> Hi Everyone
>
> I've created a page on the Wiki with the proposal suggested by Scott. I
> think this topic has been discussed in depth quite a lot lately – so I'd
> like to suggest that we try and finalise it so that it's clear for everyone
> going forward.
>
> Here's the link the the page with the proposal for news items.
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/iwfi
>
> If anyone is opposed to adopting these guidelines then please speak up.
>
> On the other hand if everyone is happy to adopt this then I'd like to
> suggest the following:
>
> 1. the page (or content) is moved to somewhere secure as you wont want
> anyone to overwrite or delete, what's been agreed
> 2. a link from the news section be made to the page content.
>
> Let's see if we can get this issue solved and get back to what we all do
> best - OFBiz!
>
> I'm happy to get any feedback on this.
>
> Thanks
> Sharan
> --
> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Proposal-Guidelines-for-News-Items-tp1597365p1597365.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[Scott Gray-2]

I think we should create a wiki page for blogs/tutorials/etc. and we could use these guidelines for that wiki page.

Regards
Scott

On 17/03/2010, at 5:47 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> A couple of quick points:
>
> 1. a solution to this has already started, see Tim's recent commit and issue about the main page
> 2. proposals like this would generally not be adopted by lack of dissent, but rather by consent or positive vote
>
> -David
>
>
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:34 PM, Sharan-F wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Everyone
>>
>> I've created a page on the Wiki with the proposal suggested by Scott. I
>> think this topic has been discussed in depth quite a lot lately – so I'd
>> like to suggest that we try and finalise it so that it's clear for everyone
>> going forward.
>>
>> Here's the link the the page with the proposal for news items.
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/iwfi
>>
>> If anyone is opposed to adopting these guidelines then please speak up.
>>
>> On the other hand if everyone is happy to adopt this then I'd like to
>> suggest the following:
>>
>> 1. the page (or content) is moved to somewhere secure as you wont want
>> anyone to overwrite or delete, what's been agreed
>> 2. a link from the news section be made to the page content.
>>
>> Let's see if we can get this issue solved and get back to what we all do
>> best - OFBiz!
>>
>> I'm happy to get any feedback on this.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Sharan
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Proposal-Guidelines-for-News-Items-tp1597365p1597365.html
>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

[David E. Jones-2]

BTW, maybe it wasn't clear in my other messages but I am against these guidelines. For a reason why take a look at which news items would have been left in and which would have been removed.

IMO if it's going to be a news section, it should only be news, and all promotional material should go somewhere else.

That's the direction we've started heading in, and I hope it will continue. The reason I think that is not because I'm against having these things on the home page, but it seems like if we don't draw a draconian line then every exception to that draconian line will likely favor one group or another and we can't seem to handle that as a community right now.

-David


On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:47 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> A couple of quick points:
>
> 1. a solution to this has already started, see Tim's recent commit and issue about the main page
> 2. proposals like this would generally not be adopted by lack of dissent, but rather by consent or positive vote
>
> -David
>
>
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:34 PM, Sharan-F wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Everyone
>>
>> I've created a page on the Wiki with the proposal suggested by Scott. I
>> think this topic has been discussed in depth quite a lot lately – so I'd
>> like to suggest that we try and finalise it so that it's clear for everyone
>> going forward.
>>
>> Here's the link the the page with the proposal for news items.
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/iwfi
>>
>> If anyone is opposed to adopting these guidelines then please speak up.
>>
>> On the other hand if everyone is happy to adopt this then I'd like to
>> suggest the following:
>>
>> 1. the page (or content) is moved to somewhere secure as you wont want
>> anyone to overwrite or delete, what's been agreed
>> 2. a link from the news section be made to the page content.
>>
>> Let's see if we can get this issue solved and get back to what we all do
>> best - OFBiz!
>>
>> I'm happy to get any feedback on this.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Sharan
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Proposal-Guidelines-for-News-Items-tp1597365p1597365.html
>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

[Tim Ruppert]

+1

Cheers,
Ruppert

On Mar 17, 2010, at 6:02 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> BTW, maybe it wasn't clear in my other messages but I am against these guidelines. For a reason why take a look at which news items would have been left in and which would have been removed.
>
> IMO if it's going to be a news section, it should only be news, and all promotional material should go somewhere else.
>
> That's the direction we've started heading in, and I hope it will continue. The reason I think that is not because I'm against having these things on the home page, but it seems like if we don't draw a draconian line then every exception to that draconian line will likely favor one group or another and we can't seem to handle that as a community right now.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:47 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> A couple of quick points:
>>
>> 1. a solution to this has already started, see Tim's recent commit and issue about the main page
>> 2. proposals like this would generally not be adopted by lack of dissent, but rather by consent or positive vote
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:34 PM, Sharan-F wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Everyone
>>>
>>> I've created a page on the Wiki with the proposal suggested by Scott. I
>>> think this topic has been discussed in depth quite a lot lately – so I'd
>>> like to suggest that we try and finalise it so that it's clear for everyone
>>> going forward.
>>>
>>> Here's the link the the page with the proposal for news items.
>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/iwfi
>>>
>>> If anyone is opposed to adopting these guidelines then please speak up.
>>>
>>> On the other hand if everyone is happy to adopt this then I'd like to
>>> suggest the following:
>>>
>>> 1. the page (or content) is moved to somewhere secure as you wont want
>>> anyone to overwrite or delete, what's been agreed
>>> 2. a link from the news section be made to the page content.
>>>
>>> Let's see if we can get this issue solved and get back to what we all do
>>> best - OFBiz!
>>>
>>> I'm happy to get any feedback on this.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Sharan
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Proposal-Guidelines-for-News-Items-tp1597365p1597365.html
>>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>

[Ruth Hoffman-2]

We seem to be at an impasse here as we can't even agree on what is "news".

IMHO, the more "news" (where "news" is anything new including new
promotional material) on the front page the better. It doesn't really
matter what is in the news, it's the fact that there is activity that is
important. I realize it is work for someone to post the links on the web
page, so maybe the restriction is only that there will be but one post
per person per week. Who might a "person" be? How about anyone with a
Wiki login account? So, anyone who cares enough to get a Wiki login can
have the privilege of posting (or rather submitting an item to be
posted) as often as they like, but only one post will be considered per
week, per login.

That way, no one needs to determine what is "news" and what is not
"news". Let the reader decide if an item is really "news". Readers are
smarter than you seem to give them credit for. They see the same things
posted over and over again and they know what to do with that kind of
"news".

Just a suggestion.

Regards,
Ruth
----------------------------------------------------
Find me on the web at http://www.myofbiz.com or Google keyword "myofbiz"
[hidden email]

David E Jones wrote:

> BTW, maybe it wasn't clear in my other messages but I am against these guidelines. For a reason why take a look at which news items would have been left in and which would have been removed.
>
> IMO if it's going to be a news section, it should only be news, and all promotional material should go somewhere else.
>
> That's the direction we've started heading in, and I hope it will continue. The reason I think that is not because I'm against having these things on the home page, but it seems like if we don't draw a draconian line then every exception to that draconian line will likely favor one group or another and we can't seem to handle that as a community right now.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:47 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>  
>> A couple of quick points:
>>
>> 1. a solution to this has already started, see Tim's recent commit and issue about the main page
>> 2. proposals like this would generally not be adopted by lack of dissent, but rather by consent or positive vote
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:34 PM, Sharan-F wrote:
>>
>>    
>>> Hi Everyone
>>>
>>> I've created a page on the Wiki with the proposal suggested by Scott. I
>>> think this topic has been discussed in depth quite a lot lately – so I'd
>>> like to suggest that we try and finalise it so that it's clear for everyone
>>> going forward.
>>>
>>> Here's the link the the page with the proposal for news items.
>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/iwfi
>>>
>>> If anyone is opposed to adopting these guidelines then please speak up.
>>>
>>> On the other hand if everyone is happy to adopt this then I'd like to
>>> suggest the following:
>>>
>>> 1. the page (or content) is moved to somewhere secure as you wont want
>>> anyone to overwrite or delete, what's been agreed
>>> 2. a link from the news section be made to the page content.
>>>
>>> Let's see if we can get this issue solved and get back to what we all do
>>> best - OFBiz!
>>>
>>> I'm happy to get any feedback on this.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Sharan
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Proposal-Guidelines-for-News-Items-tp1597365p1597365.html
>>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>      
>
>
>  

[Tim Ruppert]

This other stuff should definitely be in the wiki - and we should drive people there IMO.  Easier to administer and work on as a larger group.

Cheers,
Ruppert

On Mar 17, 2010, at 6:23 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> We seem to be at an impasse here as we can't even agree on what is "news".
>
> IMHO, the more "news" (where "news" is anything new including new promotional material) on the front page the better. It doesn't really matter what is in the news, it's the fact that there is activity that is important. I realize it is work for someone to post the links on the web page, so maybe the restriction is only that there will be but one post per person per week. Who might a "person" be? How about anyone with a Wiki login account? So, anyone who cares enough to get a Wiki login can have the privilege of posting (or rather submitting an item to be posted) as often as they like, but only one post will be considered per week, per login.
>
> That way, no one needs to determine what is "news" and what is not "news". Let the reader decide if an item is really "news". Readers are smarter than you seem to give them credit for. They see the same things posted over and over again and they know what to do with that kind of "news".
>
> Just a suggestion.
>
> Regards,
> Ruth
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Find me on the web at http://www.myofbiz.com or Google keyword "myofbiz"
> [hidden email]
>
> David E Jones wrote:
>> BTW, maybe it wasn't clear in my other messages but I am against these guidelines. For a reason why take a look at which news items would have been left in and which would have been removed.
>>
>> IMO if it's going to be a news section, it should only be news, and all promotional material should go somewhere else.
>>
>> That's the direction we've started heading in, and I hope it will continue. The reason I think that is not because I'm against having these things on the home page, but it seems like if we don't draw a draconian line then every exception to that draconian line will likely favor one group or another and we can't seem to handle that as a community right now.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:47 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> A couple of quick points:
>>>
>>> 1. a solution to this has already started, see Tim's recent commit and issue about the main page
>>> 2. proposals like this would generally not be adopted by lack of dissent, but rather by consent or positive vote
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:34 PM, Sharan-F wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>> Hi Everyone
>>>>
>>>> I've created a page on the Wiki with the proposal suggested by Scott. I
>>>> think this topic has been discussed in depth quite a lot lately – so I'd
>>>> like to suggest that we try and finalise it so that it's clear for everyone
>>>> going forward.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the link the the page with the proposal for news items.
>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/iwfi
>>>>
>>>> If anyone is opposed to adopting these guidelines then please speak up.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand if everyone is happy to adopt this then I'd like to
>>>> suggest the following:
>>>>
>>>> 1. the page (or content) is moved to somewhere secure as you wont want
>>>> anyone to overwrite or delete, what's been agreed
>>>> 2. a link from the news section be made to the page content.
>>>>
>>>> Let's see if we can get this issue solved and get back to what we all do
>>>> best - OFBiz!
>>>>
>>>> I'm happy to get any feedback on this.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Sharan
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Proposal-Guidelines-for-News-Items-tp1597365p1597365.html
>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>      
>>
>>
>>  

[Sharan-F]

Hi David

If that's what the community wants then thats OK with me but I think we need to define what 'news' is. For example is the book by Packt publishing classed as news or promotional material? (To me its news but it also promotes Packt)

I think if there can be any ambiguity then we need something the say what is acceptable and what is not. If Tim has this covered then great but I'd still think it would be good to have something written somewhere so we're all clear on what's what.

Thanks
Sharan

[David E. Jones-2]

This is the way I always hoped it would be, but instead this has resulted in one conflict after another. That's what I mean when I say that we can't seem to handle this as a community right now, and that's why I'm in favour of tight restrictions on the home page news.

-David


On Mar 17, 2010, at 6:23 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> We seem to be at an impasse here as we can't even agree on what is "news".
>
> IMHO, the more "news" (where "news" is anything new including new promotional material) on the front page the better. It doesn't really matter what is in the news, it's the fact that there is activity that is important. I realize it is work for someone to post the links on the web page, so maybe the restriction is only that there will be but one post per person per week. Who might a "person" be? How about anyone with a Wiki login account? So, anyone who cares enough to get a Wiki login can have the privilege of posting (or rather submitting an item to be posted) as often as they like, but only one post will be considered per week, per login.
>
> That way, no one needs to determine what is "news" and what is not "news". Let the reader decide if an item is really "news". Readers are smarter than you seem to give them credit for. They see the same things posted over and over again and they know what to do with that kind of "news".
>
> Just a suggestion.
>
> Regards,
> Ruth
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Find me on the web at http://www.myofbiz.com or Google keyword "myofbiz"
> [hidden email]
>
> David E Jones wrote:
>> BTW, maybe it wasn't clear in my other messages but I am against these guidelines. For a reason why take a look at which news items would have been left in and which would have been removed.
>>
>> IMO if it's going to be a news section, it should only be news, and all promotional material should go somewhere else.
>>
>> That's the direction we've started heading in, and I hope it will continue. The reason I think that is not because I'm against having these things on the home page, but it seems like if we don't draw a draconian line then every exception to that draconian line will likely favor one group or another and we can't seem to handle that as a community right now.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:47 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> A couple of quick points:
>>>
>>> 1. a solution to this has already started, see Tim's recent commit and issue about the main page
>>> 2. proposals like this would generally not be adopted by lack of dissent, but rather by consent or positive vote
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:34 PM, Sharan-F wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>> Hi Everyone
>>>>
>>>> I've created a page on the Wiki with the proposal suggested by Scott. I
>>>> think this topic has been discussed in depth quite a lot lately – so I'd
>>>> like to suggest that we try and finalise it so that it's clear for everyone
>>>> going forward.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the link the the page with the proposal for news items.
>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/iwfi
>>>>
>>>> If anyone is opposed to adopting these guidelines then please speak up.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand if everyone is happy to adopt this then I'd like to
>>>> suggest the following:
>>>>
>>>> 1. the page (or content) is moved to somewhere secure as you wont want
>>>> anyone to overwrite or delete, what's been agreed
>>>> 2. a link from the news section be made to the page content.
>>>>
>>>> Let's see if we can get this issue solved and get back to what we all do
>>>> best - OFBiz!
>>>>
>>>> I'm happy to get any feedback on this.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Sharan
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Proposal-Guidelines-for-News-Items-tp1597365p1597365.html
>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>      
>>
>>
>>  

[David E. Jones-2]

Come on people, please stop pushing this.

There are only two possible outcomes that I can see, and I don't like either of them:

1. the PMC has to vote on EVERY change to the home page, especially in the news section, to make sure everyone agrees that it is "news"
2. we remove the news section, and anything else that might change regularly, from the home page

Do we really have to resort to the most restrictive measures possible? Can't we get along with something less?

Either way, I've pulled my stuff from the page and I'm out of this conversation. Have fun.

-David


On Mar 17, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Sharan-F wrote:

>
> Hi David
>
> If that's what the community wants then thats OK with me but I think we need
> to define what 'news' is. For example is the book by Packt publishing
> classed as news or promotional material? (To me its news but it also
> promotes Packt)
>
> I think if there can be any ambiguity then we need something the say what is
> acceptable and what is not. If Tim has this covered then great but I'd still
> think it would be good to have something written somewhere so we're all
> clear on what's what.
>
> Thanks
> Sharan

[Ruth Hoffman-2]

Is this true: every change to the home page must be voted on? Or is that
what you are proposing?
Please clarify.
Regards,
Ruth

David E Jones wrote:

> Come on people, please stop pushing this.
>
> There are only two possible outcomes that I can see, and I don't like either of them:
>
> 1. the PMC has to vote on EVERY change to the home page, especially in the news section, to make sure everyone agrees that it is "news"
> 2. we remove the news section, and anything else that might change regularly, from the home page
>
> Do we really have to resort to the most restrictive measures possible? Can't we get along with something less?
>
> Either way, I've pulled my stuff from the page and I'm out of this conversation. Have fun.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Sharan-F wrote:
>
>  
>> Hi David
>>
>> If that's what the community wants then thats OK with me but I think we need
>> to define what 'news' is. For example is the book by Packt publishing
>> classed as news or promotional material? (To me its news but it also
>> promotes Packt)
>>
>> I think if there can be any ambiguity then we need something the say what is
>> acceptable and what is not. If Tim has this covered then great but I'd still
>> think it would be good to have something written somewhere so we're all
>> clear on what's what.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Sharan
>>    
>
>
>  

[Sharan-F]

Hi Everyone

I disagree with David – I dont think those are the only two options available.

This is the issue the way I see it  - it's about OFBiz service providers putting content (eg tutorials, guides, blogs) in the news section.  So if all these are now to be moved to a wiki page – then that's great – as long as this is agreed.

From what people are saying - this is the way we want to go so please can someone remove the link to  the  manufacturing guide from the news section. I'm happy to add it to the new wiki page.

So the next question – what is news? How about this for a definition – something that is reported from a source not that is not directly linked to the OFBiz project or a service provider. The only caveat here is that I would suggest the inclusion of  information from ASF itself.  

This is a simple definition with a simple formula that can be easily understood. So for example – the Packt book is news and if an OFBiz service provider does something that is reported by say the Washington Post, then that's news too.

Could this be an acceptable definition and solution ?  

Thanks
Sharan

[David E. Jones-2]

Sorry, I thought the word "outcomes" and other future tense sentences would have made this clear.

No, this is not the current policy. My point is that if people keep pushing things the ways they are these are the only two eventual outcomes. There might be a few steps in between with this policy or that to try to define things and draw distinctions, and complaints as different scenarios arise to question these things, all the time people justifying their own positions and condemning those of others.

At the end all we have is more and more restrictions until we end up with the most restrictive outcomes possible, and the two I listed are the most likely ones that came to mind while thinking about this.

Is that more clear?

-David


On Mar 17, 2010, at 6:59 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> Is this true: every change to the home page must be voted on? Or is that what you are proposing?
> Please clarify.
> Regards,
> Ruth
>
> David E Jones wrote:
>> Come on people, please stop pushing this.
>>
>> There are only two possible outcomes that I can see, and I don't like either of them:
>>
>> 1. the PMC has to vote on EVERY change to the home page, especially in the news section, to make sure everyone agrees that it is "news"
>> 2. we remove the news section, and anything else that might change regularly, from the home page
>>
>> Do we really have to resort to the most restrictive measures possible? Can't we get along with something less?
>>
>> Either way, I've pulled my stuff from the page and I'm out of this conversation. Have fun.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Sharan-F wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> Hi David
>>>
>>> If that's what the community wants then thats OK with me but I think we need
>>> to define what 'news' is. For example is the book by Packt publishing
>>> classed as news or promotional material? (To me its news but it also
>>> promotes Packt)
>>>
>>> I think if there can be any ambiguity then we need something the say what is
>>> acceptable and what is not. If Tim has this covered then great but I'd still
>>> think it would be good to have something written somewhere so we're all
>>> clear on what's what.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Sharan
>>>    
>>
>>
>>  

[Scott Gray-2]

I would most definitely class a book about OFBiz as news, it's not like they get published regularly.  Assuming we go ahead and slim down the news section I would class news as being articles from a reputable news source or items of significant importance to the community (like a book being published).  If there is ever any doubt about whether or not an item should go in there then I think we should just discuss it here on the dev or user list as a community.

I still feel like we need some sort of guidelines for the wiki page that the ex-news items will go into, but I would really like the community to come up with the guidelines since apparently I'm too biased to be taken seriously.

Regards
Scott

On 17/03/2010, at 6:32 PM, Sharan-F wrote:

>
> Hi David
>
> If that's what the community wants then thats OK with me but I think we need
> to define what 'news' is. For example is the book by Packt publishing
> classed as news or promotional material? (To me its news but it also
> promotes Packt)
>
> I think if there can be any ambiguity then we need something the say what is
> acceptable and what is not. If Tim has this covered then great but I'd still
> think it would be good to have something written somewhere so we're all
> clear on what's what.
>
> Thanks
> Sharan
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Proposal-Guidelines-for-News-Items-tp1597365p1597405.html
> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[David E. Jones-2]

On Mar 17, 2010, at 7:24 PM, Sharan-F wrote:

>
> Hi Everyone
>
> I disagree with David – I dont think those are the only two options
> available.
>
> This is the issue the way I see it  - it's about OFBiz service providers
> putting content (eg tutorials, guides, blogs) in the news section.  So if
> all these are now to be moved to a wiki page – then that's great – as long
> as this is agreed.
>
> From what people are saying - this is the way we want to go so please can
> someone remove the link to  the  manufacturing guide from the news section.
> I'm happy to add it to the new wiki page.
>
> So the next question – what is news? How about this for a definition –
> something that is reported from a source not that is not directly linked to
> the OFBiz project or a service provider. The only caveat here is that I
> would suggest the inclusion of  information from ASF itself.  
>
> This is a simple definition with a simple formula that can be easily
> understood. So for example – the Packt book is news and if an OFBiz service
> provider does something that is reported by say the Washington Post, then
> that's news too.
>
> Could this be an acceptable definition and solution ?  

So in other words being a service provider for OFBiz becomes a liability and those who engage in amateur journalism through blogging and/or twittering are out?

Sorry Sharan, but this is what I mean... every possible definition will have issues. Even if a definition is agreed on, how do we enforce it? Who will judge if something is appropriate or not by the definition? Who will interpret it? And... we're back to where we are now.

-David

[Sharan-F]

Hi Scott

I think we're definitely on the same page here (excuse the pun). I was just posting a similar definition of news at the same time.

Anyway I'm happy to volunteer my services to put some guidelines together if required. I'll change the title of the current page from News items to Wiki ex- news items (or whatever it will be called).

Thanks
Sharan

[Ruth Hoffman-2]

Hi Scott:
So, this gets really "sticky" because the publishing industry would say
that a "book" is a document that consists of a certain number of pages.
I don't remember exactly how many, but I think it something like 30+
pages. I know that Sharan's manufacturing guide is in excess of 30
pages. I also know that she spent many hours on this. By my reckoning,
this is "news". This is the first time that I know of that someone has
written a piece in excess of one or two HTML web pages that speaks
directly about OFBiz manufacturing and MRP features. Isn't that "news"?
I mean isn't that great news! Someone has taken the time to put this
together and is offering it to the public?

Regards,
Ruth

Scott Gray wrote:

> I would most definitely class a book about OFBiz as news, it's not like they get published regularly.  Assuming we go ahead and slim down the news section I would class news as being articles from a reputable news source or items of significant importance to the community (like a book being published).  If there is ever any doubt about whether or not an item should go in there then I think we should just discuss it here on the dev or user list as a community.
>
> I still feel like we need some sort of guidelines for the wiki page that the ex-news items will go into, but I would really like the community to come up with the guidelines since apparently I'm too biased to be taken seriously.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 17/03/2010, at 6:32 PM, Sharan-F wrote:
>
>  
>> Hi David
>>
>> If that's what the community wants then thats OK with me but I think we need
>> to define what 'news' is. For example is the book by Packt publishing
>> classed as news or promotional material? (To me its news but it also
>> promotes Packt)
>>
>> I think if there can be any ambiguity then we need something the say what is
>> acceptable and what is not. If Tim has this covered then great but I'd still
>> think it would be good to have something written somewhere so we're all
>> clear on what's what.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Sharan
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Proposal-Guidelines-for-News-Items-tp1597365p1597405.html
>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>    
>
>  

[David E. Jones-2]

And we go back 'round to the beginning...

You may think this is news but how is not the same sort of promotion that is causing all of this hullabaloo?

Should we add news items for every significant work related to the project? What is "significant"? Should we add some news about the various open source add-ons and about derivative works like opentaps? People "spent many hour" on those.

On a side note, I had no idea "hullabaloo" was a real word, but according to the Oxford American Dictionaries it is a real word and that's how it's spelled to boot.

-David


On Mar 17, 2010, at 7:46 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> Hi Scott:
> So, this gets really "sticky" because the publishing industry would say that a "book" is a document that consists of a certain number of pages. I don't remember exactly how many, but I think it something like 30+ pages. I know that Sharan's manufacturing guide is in excess of 30 pages. I also know that she spent many hours on this. By my reckoning, this is "news". This is the first time that I know of that someone has written a piece in excess of one or two HTML web pages that speaks directly about OFBiz manufacturing and MRP features. Isn't that "news"? I mean isn't that great news! Someone has taken the time to put this together and is offering it to the public?
>
> Regards,
> Ruth
>
> Scott Gray wrote:
>> I would most definitely class a book about OFBiz as news, it's not like they get published regularly.  Assuming we go ahead and slim down the news section I would class news as being articles from a reputable news source or items of significant importance to the community (like a book being published).  If there is ever any doubt about whether or not an item should go in there then I think we should just discuss it here on the dev or user list as a community.
>>
>> I still feel like we need some sort of guidelines for the wiki page that the ex-news items will go into, but I would really like the community to come up with the guidelines since apparently I'm too biased to be taken seriously.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 17/03/2010, at 6:32 PM, Sharan-F wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> Hi David
>>>
>>> If that's what the community wants then thats OK with me but I think we need
>>> to define what 'news' is. For example is the book by Packt publishing
>>> classed as news or promotional material? (To me its news but it also
>>> promotes Packt)
>>>
>>> I think if there can be any ambiguity then we need something the say what is
>>> acceptable and what is not. If Tim has this covered then great but I'd still
>>> think it would be good to have something written somewhere so we're all
>>> clear on what's what.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Sharan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Proposal-Guidelines-for-News-Items-tp1597365p1597405.html
>>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>    
>>
>>  

[Scott Gray-2]

I'm immensely grateful for the effort that Sharan has put into all of the documentation she has created.  I can't comment on the guide because I don't have any desire to fill out your survey (that's just me, don't take it as any form of disapproval).  When I used the term book I was referring to the paper form which is an order of magnitude more difficult to get published and a much bigger deal (it's listed on Amazon, it has reviews, etc.).

But as I mentioned below, things like this are just something we should discuss as a community and attempt to come to a consensus.

Regards
Scott

On 17/03/2010, at 7:46 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:

> Hi Scott:
> So, this gets really "sticky" because the publishing industry would say that a "book" is a document that consists of a certain number of pages. I don't remember exactly how many, but I think it something like 30+ pages. I know that Sharan's manufacturing guide is in excess of 30 pages. I also know that she spent many hours on this. By my reckoning, this is "news". This is the first time that I know of that someone has written a piece in excess of one or two HTML web pages that speaks directly about OFBiz manufacturing and MRP features. Isn't that "news"? I mean isn't that great news! Someone has taken the time to put this together and is offering it to the public?
>
> Regards,
> Ruth
>
> Scott Gray wrote:
>> I would most definitely class a book about OFBiz as news, it's not like they get published regularly.  Assuming we go ahead and slim down the news section I would class news as being articles from a reputable news source or items of significant importance to the community (like a book being published).  If there is ever any doubt about whether or not an item should go in there then I think we should just discuss it here on the dev or user list as a community.
>>
>> I still feel like we need some sort of guidelines for the wiki page that the ex-news items will go into, but I would really like the community to come up with the guidelines since apparently I'm too biased to be taken seriously.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 17/03/2010, at 6:32 PM, Sharan-F wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> Hi David
>>>
>>> If that's what the community wants then thats OK with me but I think we need
>>> to define what 'news' is. For example is the book by Packt publishing
>>> classed as news or promotional material? (To me its news but it also
>>> promotes Packt)
>>>
>>> I think if there can be any ambiguity then we need something the say what is
>>> acceptable and what is not. If Tim has this covered then great but I'd still
>>> think it would be good to have something written somewhere so we're all
>>> clear on what's what.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Sharan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Proposal-Guidelines-for-News-Items-tp1597365p1597405.html
>>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>    
>>
>>  

[Ruth Hoffman-2]

Scott Gray wrote:
> I'm immensely grateful for the effort that Sharan has put into all of the documentation she has created.  I can't comment on the guide because I don't have any desire to fill out your survey (that's just me, don't take it as any form of disapproval).
None taken. The survey is there for one reason: to give people an
opportunity to tell us what to develop next. Sort of like giving OFBiz
user's the opportunity to express their opinions about OFBiz without
making them jump through hoops or exposing them to ridicule.
>  When I used the term book I was referring to the paper form which is an order of magnitude more difficult to get published and a much bigger deal (it's listed on Amazon, it has reviews, etc.).
>
>  
Actually, for those who may not know this...ebook creation and
publication is just as difficult as paper publication. Anyone can
publish a hardcopy if they have a PDF (using Lulu). There are good
publications and bad ones. The devil is in the details. All that Amazon
and review stuff...that comes with marketing $$$. It has nothing to do
with the effort that goes into writing a book. Only how much money a
publisher is will to throw at a book. BTW, I've had people comment on my
books - similar to reviews. If you care to do a review and comment
either way, I'd be very happy to publish your comments. Just say the
word and I'll send you a copy.

> But as I mentioned below, things like this are just something we should discuss as a community and attempt to come to a consensus.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 17/03/2010, at 7:46 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
>
>  
>> Hi Scott:
>> So, this gets really "sticky" because the publishing industry would say that a "book" is a document that consists of a certain number of pages. I don't remember exactly how many, but I think it something like 30+ pages. I know that Sharan's manufacturing guide is in excess of 30 pages. I also know that she spent many hours on this. By my reckoning, this is "news". This is the first time that I know of that someone has written a piece in excess of one or two HTML web pages that speaks directly about OFBiz manufacturing and MRP features. Isn't that "news"? I mean isn't that great news! Someone has taken the time to put this together and is offering it to the public?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ruth
>>
>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>    
>>> I would most definitely class a book about OFBiz as news, it's not like they get published regularly.  Assuming we go ahead and slim down the news section I would class news as being articles from a reputable news source or items of significant importance to the community (like a book being published).  If there is ever any doubt about whether or not an item should go in there then I think we should just discuss it here on the dev or user list as a community.
>>>
>>> I still feel like we need some sort of guidelines for the wiki page that the ex-news items will go into, but I would really like the community to come up with the guidelines since apparently I'm too biased to be taken seriously.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On 17/03/2010, at 6:32 PM, Sharan-F wrote:
>>>
>>>  
>>>      
>>>> Hi David
>>>>
>>>> If that's what the community wants then thats OK with me but I think we need
>>>> to define what 'news' is. For example is the book by Packt publishing
>>>> classed as news or promotional material? (To me its news but it also
>>>> promotes Packt)
>>>>
>>>> I think if there can be any ambiguity then we need something the say what is
>>>> acceptable and what is not. If Tim has this covered then great but I'd still
>>>> think it would be good to have something written somewhere so we're all
>>>> clear on what's what.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Sharan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Proposal-Guidelines-for-News-Items-tp1597365p1597405.html
>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>    
>>>>        
>>>  
>>>      
>
>