Following up with beat writers

[Oisin Feeley]

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Josh Bressers <bressers at redhat.com> wrote:

>> Yes please.  Unless it seems like too much extra burden.  Obviously
>> editors would take care of #2 "NO WRITER" but all the other information
>> is more easily available to the actual beat writer. So instead of the
>> editorial team sending out queries to see what is happening the beat
>> writer can just jump straight to a central place to update us on the
>> status.
>>
>
> I'd be willing to mark it complete, but I don't plan to mark something in
> progress.  That seems like a rather silly and pointless step.
>
> This is one of the problems with new leadership.  It's easy to step in and
> start over-engineering a currently working process.  Be mindful of your
> changes.  These people are volunteers and too much process will push people
> away.

Good point.  Thanks for the insight. We definitely don't want to
increase the burden on anyone that's actually doing the hard work of
volunteering their time and effort. I'd like to keep things simple and
try and make it easy to contribute. That's certainly something that
Thomas Chung was excellent at doing and why I joined FWN in the first
place.

I'm in favor of anything that reduces email traffic and specific
queries to beat-writers about status and in favor of anything that
allows beat-writers to communicate simply to editors what's going to
happen with the week's beat: I guess we can assume the default that
unless someone explicitly says otherwise they are writing their week's
beat (IN PROGRESS), so it's not a necessary step and produces an extra
hurdle once the deadline is approaching.

Thanks again