recycling "Fedora Insight" name?

[Paul W. Frields]

On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 09:25:01AM +1000, Ryan Lerch wrote:
> On 05/07/2015 09:12 AM, Pete Travis wrote:
> >
> >
> >On May 6, 2015 4:07 PM, "Paul W. Frields" <stickster at gmail.com
> ><mailto:stickster at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 04:45:43PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> >> > On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 01:25:53PM -0400, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> >> > > On 05/05/2015 12:12 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> >> > > > I'm still unsure about "news", because I'm afraid that people will
> >> > > > think that it's just another announce-list (or devel-announce). A
> >lot
> >> > > > of the things I anticipate posting would be kind of "pre-news" —
> >this
> >> > > > is being worked on (and maybe needs input), rather than this was
> >> > > > _done_. Plus, I want somewhere to post articles along the lines of
> >> > > >
> ><http://fedoramagazine.org/lets-talk-about-fedora-project-objectives/>,
> >> > > > which isn't news at all.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'm happy to drop "insight", though, if people aren't fond of it,
> >or
> >> > > > worse, have a negative association — I don't really have any
> >> > > > association with it _at all_, other than I know many of you were
> >> > > > working on it and then it morphed into the Magazine instead.
> >> > >
> >> > > I guess I'm unfamiliar w/the Insight history. News seems fine, and
> >"what
> >> > > we're doing / working on that will soon affect you" does fit under
> >the
> >> > > "news" category.
> >> >
> >> > I don't think it's as much a negative association per se as a name
> >> > with history attached that would confuse people.  It was a project
> >> > that fizzled, so to reuse the name would be confusing about how this
> >> > new site came about.  -1 Insight for me too.
> >>
> >> And... just so I can contribute something useful and constructive, :-)
> >> I think what would make great sense is calling this site "Fedora
> >> News."
> >>
> >> Lest anyone think this is too generic, the madness hath method!  The
> >> kind of information we are proposing go into the site is *precisely*
> >> that which used to be covered by Fedora Weekly News.  We're basically
> >> removing the "Weekly" in name as well as concept.  And perhaps you
> >> could visit it at news.fp.o -- which makes sense not only for naming
> >> but because it is the news of the project itself.
> >>
> >> If you think of these companion sites in terms of movies -- which
> >> everyone should know by now I love -- Fedora Magazine is a lot like
> >> Empire, and Fedora News is a lot like Variety.  You read the first
> >> because you love going to movies and dipping into more about them.
> >> You read the second because you're in the business of making movies,
> >> and you need to know things like what studio exec just hopped jobs, or
> >> that the Writers Guild is bucking for more benefits.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul W. Frields
> >
> >I recall that Fedora Magazine once had sections.  A section for users and
> >a section for contributors makes more sense to me than spinning up a whole
> >new site.  Users might be interested in content in either scope, and we
> >want them to *become* contributors.  It strikes me as more inclusive to
> >make all the content available in one place, anyway, but not necessarily
> >on the same pages.
> >
> 
> yeah, we had a discussion about this a while back, and this is where the
> idea of a seperate site propagated from. The idea here is that different
> sites will allow us to focus content on our two prime audiences. Even with
> categories, people that really only care about user-facing content have a
> larger signal-to-noise ratio with posts about elections, community stats
> etc.
> 
> That is not to say that *some* of the communtity related content doesn't
> belong on the magazine, it's just that not all of it should be there,
> firehose style. We also get the added benefit of when we do put
> community-releated content on the magazine, we can tailor it in an
> outreach-style to a more focused audience -- for example a flock post would
> go into more detail of flock and it's aims while a majority of people that
> are already contributors already know this.

Agreed on all points.  I think everyone else agreed thus far the
separate sites are a good idea so we can target the right audiences
with different sets of material.  It's also a good idea in that we
target the right audiences with different sets of authors, too.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
    The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com