I like this proposal. I see it as a backup solution to prevent proposals sitting there for days or weeks, discouraging our writers. When things work well and we keep being responsive, this duty will be very little work. But it makes sure that in times we're not that responsive as a whole, there is someone who won't let our writers down. I like it. And I think a week is a reasonable length. Both from the length perspective itself, and also from the organizational point of view. Maybe meeting to meeting? Or Monday to Friday, set during the meeting the week before? But I'm generally +1 On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 4:53 PM <s40w5s@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2020-06-16 at 10:15 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > I want to follow up on the proposal: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bcotton/Magazine_Editor_of_the_Week > > > > First, an open question: How would we track who the Editor of the > > Week > > is? Just in the meeting minutes? On a wiki page? In the docs? With an > > IRC command (similar to the .oncall command that the infra team > > uses)? > > Generally, we should encourage the use of public channels (mailing > > list/discourse and IRC channel), but there may be a time when it's > > necessary to contact a person directly. > This is a good question. Though I think IRC is likely the best option, > for me it would require more use of it, which isn't an issue just a > comment. > > > > Secondly, someone in last week's meeting (I forget who) expressed > > concern that it would lead to overburdening and burnout. I can't say > > that it won't, but the intent is to do the opposite. By defining what > > the tasks are and assigning them to someone, we give a clear set of > > responsibility and change the person tasked with that responsibility > > on a regular basis. Is a week too long? Maybe. It's certainly the > > most > > convenient length of time, since the meetings give us a clear handoff > > point. > > > > I don't expect that the load would be too overwhelming to do for a > > month, particularly because there's an understanding that this is > > best > > effort. We could also split it into "first half of the week" and > > "second half of the week" where the "halfway" point is the meeting. > > But I think that overcomplicates it. Having spent years on pager duty > > (including with a physical pager, which was fun), I'm sensitive to > > the > > concern, but I think the proposal is a good starting point. We can > > always adjust (having co-editors of the week with separated > > responsibilities, shortening it to Editor of the Half Week, etc) if > > it > > turns out to be a problem. > The length is likely too short for it to become a burnout issue. Some > have been more active than others as editors, and I include myself in > the others group. For my part, it often came down to two basic points > of friction WRT editing duties... > 1)- Unfamiliarity with the process and the tools to use > 2)- Not a high enough user right level to actually do some tasks > Point 1 is improved with efforts from Adam and Paul that clarified the > process. Point 2 was improved (Taiga Board being one area), but a bit > of point 1 as I have become more familiar with the tools chosen. > > The other side of the coin is the writers and potential. Burnout > > isn't > > the right word here, but something like discouragement. Right now, > > proposals can sometimes sit for weeks without reply, which > > discourages > > writers. By making sure we're actively engaging with new writers and > > the comments section, we can help keep the community vibrant and > > healthy. > > > The Editorial Board has grown in the recent past, and this is a good > thing for it shows the community is engaged. This is also a good thing > for the EofW proposal, though I would have gone with Editor in Chief > just 'cause. Anyway, a month is also a good length, but a month is a > hard thing to commit to with my other obligations in life, which I > suspect is similar for all contributors. My point being that with more > Editors on the board, we have more ability to address the contribution > bottleneck through editorial diligence. This should in turn help the > writers who are feeling like their idea/article has been languishing in > obscurity. > > I think that what Adam has proposed for trying to improve the work > process, and if the test proves successful, should dovetail well with > the Editor of the Week concept. > Stephen > > > Thanks, > > BC > > > > -- > > Ben Cotton > > He / Him / His > > Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream > > Red Hat > > TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis > > _______________________________________________ > > Fedora Magazine mailing list -- magazine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > To unsubscribe send an email to > > magazine-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Fedora Code of Conduct: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > > List Guidelines: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > > List Archives: > > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/magazine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > _______________________________________________ > Fedora Magazine mailing list -- magazine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to magazine-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/magazine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > -- Adam Šamalík --------------------------- Senior Software Engineer Red Hat _______________________________________________ Fedora Magazine mailing list -- magazine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to magazine-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/magazine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
