[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Wiki page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_print_magazine_proposal


> > Also, I'm not sure that LPM will be okay with using material under
> > CC-BY-SA, for example (which is Free). If I had to guess, I'd say they
> > would want something with the Non Commercial restriction (and a specific
> > exclusion for them).
> Yeah, this is something we Don't Know Yet. I believe the LPM folks will 
> be coming back with a revised proposal at the beginning of next week and 
> hopefully that will answer some of the questions that we have about how 
> this would work.

Excellent :-)

> > But lets keep in mind that as far as I know, it is not clear where the
> > content for this magazine will come from. Mel, maybe you can shed some
> > light here?
> Keeping in mind that this is still very much a proposal, and we're still 
> trying to figure out if it would even work and whether we should do it...

We certainly should do it - anything which promotes us in such a way is
good. I do though think the scope of the publication needs altering.
While it is good that the proposal is to try and bring Windows users
over from the dark side, we should be looking at those in power at
companies, we should be looking at the education markets (hell, the OLPC
is probably one of the finest examples of both green technology and how
OSS is being used to teach and help in the developing countries). Maybe
for a second edition eh ;-)

> The magazine content (in terms of both writing and graphics) would come 
> from a combination of LPM's staff and Fedora community members; 
> obviously we're hoping to weight that balance towards the Fedora 
> community as much as possible, but it would depend on how many people 
> stepped up to participate. Another open question is the process of 
> determining what that content will be. (So in short, Spot's right; it's 
> not clear.)

That's down to the editorial staff.

The process I used to take was this

1. Get all the articles together. By submitting the article, it meant
that they agreed with the terms of publication.
2. Proof read and send back to author with helpful suggestions (some did
include lines such as "in it's current state, it would not be suitable
for publication")
3. If there was enough to publish, the weaker articles would be quietly
dropped or edited them down - effectively making them space fillers
4. If an article was close to the knuckle (legally), it would have to be
checked by the legal people. This usually meant that it would be delayed
until the next issue
5. Final edit and send to the production editor
6. Production editor makes the mock up and emails it to the team who
then proof it again to ensure accuracy and content validity.

Now, for us if it's not supplied by LPM, the editor (or another member
of the editorial staff) will need to check that if it's a walk through
that the walk through is correct. If it is supplied by LPM, then I'd
assume it's correct, but still check (IIRC, Linux Format in the UK did a
series using the GIMP and while it was fantastic, there was one that
never worked irrespective of the version of GIMP used. I never did find
out why as my subscription lapsed [lost job, subscription went to save
money, old story...])


(getting excited!)

Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]