[openbeos] Re: the new website

Hi there,

On 2006-08-26 at 22:33:13 [+0200], Waldemar Kornewald <wkornew@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On 8/26/06, Jorge G. Mare (a.k.a. Koki) <koki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The newsletter is a different animal. It is a bit more formal, and also
> > meant to build value. As mentioned in my reply to Axel, I see the
> > newsletter as a potential incentive for people to write articles (beyond
> > their blog), a means for promoting the project (and eventually the
> > product), and potentially a space for our sponsors (both existing and
> > future) to advertise in, opening the possibility of raising funds for
> > the project.
> 
> Hmm, I'd have to see something more concrete before I continue
> commenting on it. I just think that there is too much artificial
> separation between all those content types.

I tend to agree with Koki: The developer articles will be personal views that 
reflect the daily life of us haiku-slaves, won't they? >;o) Pretty much like 
Axel's blog was when he got paid by haiku, some of his entries were real 
articles, others were quick updates.
Newsletter articles, on the other side, have a specific aim, which is to 
"build value" (as Koki put it), ideally giving insight as well as 
contributing to the overall public image of the project. They will tend to be 
longish and each of them will hopefully have a clear, specific topic (which 
in my experience is only rarely true for personal articles).

Furthermore, I see the personal articles as being in the domain of the 
individual developer, while any newsletter articles (that may or may not be 
written by developers) are in the domain of marketing, i.e. this is where the 
marcom team may insist on change of wording, etc. While this may sound like 
PR-machinery-hell, it is merely the basic principle that will allow marcom to 
keep control over the official view project haiku will present to the outside.

If we can agree on that separation, it should be easier to avoid those highly 
emotional discussions between developers and marcom about the effect of the 
PR-machinery: it should simply be obvious for any newsletter article author 
that marcom has the final say on the article. And it should be obvious to the 
marcom team that they have nothing to complain about any developer article.

It might even be the case that marcom may explicitly request articles about 
certain topics to be written within a certain timeframe, in order to achieve 
any goal. This, of course, is totally opposed to the self-motivated notion of 
developer "blogs".

> > Those were ideas of how the wiki could be used in response to the "what
> > do we want a wiki for?" questions. But really, the point here is that
> > having a wiki is a good thing, as it gives those outside of the project
> > an opportunity to show themselves, and potentially contribute with
> > documentation that could be useful.
> 
> Agreed. We should just make sure that it does not become a second
> website, again.
> 
> > >> I am not concerned about the content; it is a blog, where people can
> > >> rant, and others can comment. It is more of a social thing.
> > >
> > > I think it would be too unprofessional to have this on our website.
> > > All important content should be part of the official website section
> > > and that doesn't leave much room for interesting Haiku-related
> > > articles in the user section. This will end in too many off-topic
> > > discussions and that's exactly what we should not have on the official
> > > site.
> >
> > What user section?
> 
> "Community" section.
> 
> > The Community area is meant to give the community a place to express
> > themselves and to nurture a sense of community. There is really no need
> > to have a separate site for this, as long as it is clearly
> > distinguishable from the rest of the site.
> 
> In my recent over-exaggerated email I hope to have made clear which
> cocerns I have with blogs. What is our focus? Haiku or end-user rants?
> Who needs those rants, anyway? Why do we want to "pollute" our
> official website with off-topic personal discussions which don't
> express our own opinion and might even be harmful for us because they
> go too far into the "personal rant" category? Why would people coming
> to our site want ot read personal blogs? What does that have to do
> with Haiku the product? Why don't you answer directly to these
> concerns? :)
> 
> I have a very big problem with putting something on our website that
> is bigger than all the on-topic content we put there.

Yes, I strongly support that notion: the community stuff should by no means 
outweigh the official part. It would be extremely hard to control that kind 
of subsite, and I think "control" is one of the keywords on the way from 
project to product (which I think is where we're heading).

Community is good and important, we all know that, but it is a constantly 
moving target. Who knows what community site will be the hottest in half a 
year? And it would be quite embarassing if haiku's own community subsite 
would simply not be accepted by the community. I think the community will 
find ways to organize itself, anyway. All we need to do, IMHO, is to link to 
those sites, of course.

> > > You talk about "trust", but then you don't even want to give the
> > > developers (the people who *make* Haiku! it's *their* product!)
> > > access. That's a bad solution and I doubt that any of us will accept
> > > it. We trust you if you trust us.
> >
> > Too bad that you take it that way. :-(
> 
> Sorry, you just sounded too much like koki.org. :)
> I really understood that you wanted to *not* give the developers
> access to the whole website.
> 
> > It's OK that the core devs have full access; but it would have to be in
> > a manageable way. The "anybody can post anywhere, anytime" approach does
> > not work if you want to have a cohesive, compelling message, and that is
> > what marketing is all about.
> 
> Well, that's an acceptable compromise. The developers let you do all
> the work, but still get full access. :)
> The fact that anyone can post anywhere doesn't mean that we *have* to
> actually do it. We can leave this to you.

Yes, I think it should be more of an organizational concept, if we would need 
to enforce it by access rights, we'd be doomed, anyway. It should be clear 
which team has general say on the several parts of the website. "Trespassing" 
should be possible, but as exceptional measure only.

> > While Haiku would admittedly not exist without the devs that create the
> > code, and I deeply appreciate what the devs do (I really do), Haiku is
> > more than just devs, and it will be more so as it grows. I would
> > (gently) ask if you could try to acknowledge that there are people that
> > can contribute in areas of competence other than yours. Otherwise, there
> > is no need for a marcom team (or any other non-engineering team for that
> > matter).
> 
> While I don't really see me as a developer, anymore, I agree with you
> (of course!). You should know that I do understand a few obvious
> things like the team not only being developers. ;)

I see myself as a developer, but even though I can see the need for project 
haiku to start building it's marcom team now (so I am very glad it actually 
happens). The project needs to organize itself now (and get through all the 
discussions/aches we are currently seeing) in order to be all set when the 
real story begins. Otherwise, I suppose there's a high danger of the project 
simply falling apart after the first release.

> > If you think of it, the fact that you have such a narrow view of what
> > news can be, and clearly underestimate the persuasion power and
> > usefulness of a well thougthout and designed front page is in itself
> > proof that Haiku could indeed greatly benefit from a marketing function.

Ouch, Koki, I suppose you are currently fighting hard to get enough free 
space for the marcom team to dwell in, but this does sound a bit too harsh to 
me.

> Now you're getting personal. I just do not like splitting everything
> up too much and I have never seen news which could not be part of the
> "article" section I'm having in mind. You're still calling it a
> blog...
> If you want to make a more pretty front page I'm all for it, but may I
> remind you of the fact that you mentioned *three* article types?
> - News & Events
> - Newsletter
> - Developer's blogs

To me, these three have separate meanings, so I'd like to have them all.

> (actually four if you count user blogs, but I really have doubts about
> them being a good idea)

Seconded, I don't think those are a good idea, as it is community stuff. We 
will be having a hard enough time to get our own content into good shape, so 
the least thing we need is more work with user-edited subsites. I mean, who 
is going to cull all the personal insults, calm the flame-wars, check for 
unlawful content... oh the horror! >:o/

> I'm well aware of news items as you can already see on the current
> website. But I really don't understand what you have in mind for
> newsletters that could not be part of "member articles" (not developer
> blogs!) and why you cannot use the same for both. You seem to have
> ambitious marketing plans if you need a separate newsletter which
> should flood companies and is so extremely different from the "member
> articles" that you cannot unify both and only pick the
> markting-related content when sending it to companies and sponsors.

As I tried to illustrate above, I think they are different flavours of 
articles.

cheers,
        Oliver

Other related posts: