[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-promo
Subject:    Re: [kde-promo] Re: [Important] When talking about Aegypten or
From:       Andreas Pour <pour () mieterra ! com>
Date:       2003-02-01 19:32:34
[Download RAW message or body]


Hi,

Your points are all well-taken.  And if this were an issue, it would be
important to get right.

But the point of *why* the project was funded / contracted / whatever, was not
an issue.  If someone writes a story on KDE, they are in the driver's seat.  You
do not get to pick what is important, and what is published.  They do.  And if
you bother them about it, they are just as likely to talk to someone else next
time.  Do not try to force an agenda on reporters.  You can try to guide them,
and I did in the interview, by focusing on what I thought was most important,
but in the end you must accept it is their magazine/website and their story and
they get to write what they want.  In fact if they want they can write a story
that says KDE is terrible.  By glad they were honest and wrote it is great :-).

The way an interview goes, the reporter asks some questions, you answer them. 
The funding issue was not even a question in this case, as the reporter knew
about that.  And if I am spontaneously to raise a few issues about KDE, the
details of this funding are not it.  Why?  B/c (a) this is not the most
important point I can make about KDE; and (b) I do not think the reporter would
publish that anyway, and the few seconds I have to speak freely I focus on what
I think he will publish (i.e., what I think he thinks his readers care about).

I think there will come a time when all this comes to the front burner though. 
As soon as the German gov't rolls out this solution in its agencies, then we do
a press release emphasizing all these points.  We can do a story about how the
project got funded and why and the details and the rollout.  If this story is
published, then these details you mention may very likely end up in the press
coverage - but even in that case there is no gurantee.  B/c the reporter chooses
what to write, not us :-).

What goes into a story is the reporter's total choice, we just sit back and be
happy we got positive coverage.

All in my opinion, of course :-).

Ciao,

Dre


Karl-Heinz Zimmer wrote:
> 
> Hi Andreas,
> 
> thanks for making things a bit clearer for me /but/ please excuse me for
> insisting to take things a bit more serious that you propose:
> 
> On Friday 31 January 2003 22:33, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I think this may be a translation issue.  In English, there is no such
> > difference.
> > 
> > In English, governments "fund" things.  For example, they fund highway
> > construction.  Nobody thinks this means, they pay a contractor whether the
> > job is done or not.  Everyone knows there are contracts involved and
> > payment is made only when the job is completed, subject of course to
> > progress payments.
> (...)
> 
> This explanation was very good, I now understand there is a difference
> between the American and the German maening of these words...
> 
> > So let's not get religious about this and annoy CNet.  I think
> > they did a great story and I don't think their reward should be
> > getting "corrected".
> 
> 1. While I fully agree to you that CNet should not be 'annoyed' by us
> muttering about such things I _still_ propose to make the terms of
> our contract clear to them:
> 
> This can be done in polite words - we just want to explain the facts
> - we do NOT AT ALL want to blame anybody.
> 
> 2. Perhaps that sounds a bit silly(?) but in contrary to your opinion
> I propose this:
> 
> So let us get religious about this!
> 
> Why do I think so?
> Very easy:
> 
> Making clear that the government gave us a _job_ to do and
> making clear that the government made NO sponsorship of any kind
> is extremely important!
> 
> ***  Government wanted a solution for with their heterogenous network.  ***
> 
> ***  So they contracted us to provide that solution.  ***
> 
> ***  For reasons this solution is based on/consists of Free Software.  ***
> 
> ***  It being Free Software is a detail, similiar like it being C or C++  ***
> 
> again: The government did NOT say: Let us support Free Software,
> but they sayed clearly: "Let's get a good solution for our network"!
> 
> IMO Insisting in making this difference clear does not mean accusing anybody
> but it means avoiding a dangerous misunderstanding - and that's why IMHO we
> /should/ get religious about this issue.
> 
> Besides from that I would like to say:
> Thanks for your patience with an over-exact German!  ;-)
 
_______________________________________________
This message is from the kde-promo mailing list.

Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-promo to unsubscribe, set digest on or \
temporarily stop your subscription.


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]