recycling "Fedora Insight" name?

[Paul W. Frields]

On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 09:09:17AM -0600, Pete Travis wrote:
> On May 8, 2015 7:05 AM, "Matthew Miller" <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 06:13:38AM -0400, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > Totally agree, and argued this... but hey, what do I know about
> publishing?
> >
> > This is my thinking too (even though I know less about publishing), but
> > since other people I *also* respect are very strongly in the other
> > camp, I figure, hey, might as well try it. We can always merge them
> > back if it isn't working.
> >
> > I'm thinking I'll move 5tFTW to this new "news" site — it clearly makes
> > most sense there. But I'm a little worried that we're going to be short
> > on regular content in the Magazine — that seems like the primary
> > problem to address next.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthew Miller
> 
> I've heard good things from many not-contributors about 5tFTW.  Granted,
> the most interested will follow that content, and everything else, on a
> contributor focused site too.  Your posts have always come across as a
> valuable, digestible bridge between contributors and users, and that's
> anecdotally supported by my interactions with enthusiast users.
> 
> This further illustrates my point - a split introduces divisiveness where
> we could be promoting involvement.  Take the [contributor focused] QA
> series, for example - a user the learns about test days for something they
> use and later sees recognition via "Heroes of QA" is going to be far more
> likely to participate in QA.
> 
> Whether they actively contribute or not, people get excited about things
> happening in the community and feel more like they are "part of the team"
> when they are well informed.  That's a feeling we should be encouraging, at
> every point on the graph from casual user to enthusiast user to casual
> contributor to committed contributor to community leader.
> 
> I'm not saying that it makes sense to have all content in one massive
> androgynous feed, but a totally different site sends the message that we're
> roping off part of the community, and I'm concerned that people will feel
> excluded or just not bother to follow the content because they haven't
> consciously committed to contributing .

Perhaps Ryan could suggest an elegant design solution for this, and we
could allow him to work out in his theming draft.  Either way, the
content would be one click away for a viewer.  (5TFtW might be worth
cross-publishing, especially since it serves that bridging function
Pete pointed out.)

I don't think we should put too much weight on the "gap" caused by
having to click for a link on a different domain.  In my experience,
few people attach that much distinction aside from those of us
providing the systems.

-- 
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