Clean up your front page.

[Aeneas]

Newsletter 99, while it was informative, is over a year old. I propose not displaying it any longer, because it just looks like "that project died, it stopped even its newsletter" for the casual observer.

[Webunny]

I made a composite of summarized blogs (of the technical kind) as a new newsletter several months ago. I remade it until Vic was satisfied. He then promised he would do the effort of placing it after the IGG, because he was too busy at the time. which, of course, I understood.


Of course, even this lays several months behind us now, and even after a reminder, nothing was done, but I did get a reply he would go into it "Hopefully at the end of this week." That was in April.

Now, I must see how I word this, because there are some here with very long toes, and even when treading lightly those are easily hurt, but... without blaming anyone in particular, I once again have the tendency to say it as it is: it's not normal that it takes THIS long, even counting for the IGG preparation and handling. Next thing I will hear, is that changing the newsletter is half a days' work, I presume.
I think there is like a space-time discontinuum wrapped around ROS, where normal time extends a tenfold.

So, anyway, normally there should have been a newsletter 100 already a long time ago. If I had witnessed any active (well, de facto, that is) support and see my work actually result in something, I would have been inclined to keep making similar new newsletters. But whether it is the translation, the newspaper or the wallpapers, it always seems to take ages (if ever) before the work one has put in something, is actually used or made usable. One might contemplate, then, if this 'handling' is done with everyone and everything (as an effort from the community), that the frustration rises, the enthusiasm goes down, and community involvement in general isn't actually stimulated by this sort of thing.

This as a hypothetical pondering, of course. I could be wrong, and people might find this sort of lacklustre response of devs/PR invigorating.

[vicmarcal]

I made a composite of summarized blogs (of the technical kind) as a new newsletter several months ago. I remade it until Vic was satisfied. He then promised he would do the effort of placing it after the IGG, because he was too busy at the time. which, of course, I understood.

Hi Webunny!
Sadly my manpower reduces to 24hours at day dedicated to ReactOS.Well, also I have to deduct the sleeping hours, my real work, probably one or two girlfriends, and some other posh things as...eating

Probably, and not just you, people thinks that IGG ends when the IGG campaign ends, however IGG really begins when the IGG campaign ends. We have to care about Perks rewards, a new Online shop, finding Devs to work in the 3 apps support, caring about the Blog, and so on. Next week probably you (as the Community) will begin enjoying some of the surprises that ReactOS Team has been working on.

I wish we could have much more manpower, but it reduces to a couple of g33ks "working for free" something that in the outside-real world could even report us, the g33ks, some dozens of thousands dollars(just try to check how much a whole IGG campaign costs in any Marketing "drugstore", and it costs a lot because the time it really consumes).

I feel so sorry I couldn't upload your Summary, but we're sending a Summary to all the emails who have joined the Community Edition mailing list. So it is not that we don't like your idea, but that we've upgraded to a new, even more awesome, level.

I'd feel bad with myself if the reason of not hanging your Summary would have been Laziness. However, be sure, I haven't been lazy at all during the last 9 months since the IGG was sketched in a Google Doc. I'm pretty sure you don't doubt about it neither.

I'd feel bad with myself if the reason of not hanging your Summary woud have been that I didn't like your idea but however I pushed you to lose your precious time. This is not the case since now, as said, all the Community edition guys are receiving batch and summaries of the latest Community news mainly thanks to your suggestion.

As said, noone around here is billing for the 22 hours/day effort and we just love your ( as Community) encouraging words to keep working for, basically, you.

Hope you can understand that your polite and encouraging words are the only reason to refuel our steam and push the machine further. Encouraging is the only reason there are still some guys around coding for Ros. Hope that will give you a different point of view of our work.

Thanks guys!

[Webunny]

I made a composite of summarized blogs (of the technical kind) as a new newsletter several months ago. I remade it until Vic was satisfied. He then promised he would do the effort of placing it after the IGG, because he was too busy at the time. which, of course, I understood.

Hi Webunny!
Sadly my manpower reduces to 24hours at day dedicated to ReactOS.Well, also I have to deduct the sleeping hours, my real work, probably one or two girlfriends, and some other posh things as...eating !

double crossing? Tssk!

No sex before work!

Eating, of course, is a luxery. Luckily, there are such things as intravenous drips.

Probably, and not just you, people thinks that IGG ends when the IGG campaign ends, however IGG really begins when the IGG campaign ends. We have to care about Perks rewards, a new Online shop, finding Devs to work in the 3 apps support, caring about the Blog, and so on. Next week probably you (as the Community) will begin enjoying some of the surprises that ReactOS Team has been working on.

No, not at all. Well, at least not me. I already incorporated a reasonable time for it needing some leeway during and after the IGG campaign. Most of the time the actual work of one of my proposals takes about half to 2 hours. Once I got the sign it's ok and I made the effort/work I then consider how long it would take an organisation, being understaffed, and being busy with a lot of other stuff, for it to do that work. On itself, an hours' work could be done in an an hour - obviously, but as said, it's reasonable and understandable that this is not realistic, and of course, you're not there to hastily do everything we agreed on; I'm not your boss and I'm not paying you, after all. So, would 1 full week be reasonable? That means one has to make oneself free for one hour in 168 hours (minus eating and such, of course). Well, maybe that's still too much asked. One could be really, really busy after all, and be really, really understaffed. Well, let's double this, then, which is 1 hours' time in 336 hours. That's more than 300 times the necessary time it would actually take. But, wait, I don't want to come off as impatient, and a lot of that time goes to real/life activities, after all. Let's double it again. That's a month (672 hours) for finding one hours' time. But wait again, maybe I'm still being too optimistic, maybe ROS is so understaffed and shorthanded, like, one person running everything on his own AND he's more busy with IGG and what not, such as no other organisation has ever been. Well, let's double that again, then: two months. That's 1344 hours. Even with eating and two girlfriends, one surely can find one hour of the 1344 to look into something one promised two months ago? But, well, let's be outrageous patient; one wouldn't want to give the impression anyone is lazy, after all. Or that anyone at ROS is, basically, 'working for me'. Because they sure aren't. So let's double that again. Let's give them 4 months. That's 2688 hour to find a little hole of one hour to act upon it. That would be enough time for even the most busy, most understaffed organisation to act upon something UNLESS they thought that something was utterly worthless... in which case they needed to say that outright and from the start, not after the work was done.

This is how I reason, so, as you can see, I do not think that 'the IGG ends when the IGG campaign ends', nor do I make the mistake of forgetting that ROS is understaffed and busy. That's already fully being incorporated and calculated in by the time I dare to make a (more 'pushy') comment about it. Because, as one can see, even a generous 4 months is not enough, it usually takes 6 months as a minimum, and even that after I point this out in a more open post (pm never seems to be a good medium to make someone budge, it would seem). Of course, the moment I point out that maybe it's not to be deemed normal taking more than 6 months for something that takes normally one hour - I'm being pushy, I'm being accusatory that ROS people are lazy, and what not. But let's face it here: if I wasn't 'pushy' (aka, point this out) the buttons (and the other things) would still not be rectified to this day, and would still not be dealt with even after ten years. I think deep down everyone knows this. The only things that get done is things that are decided top down, not bottom up. Forgive me if feeling slightly annoyed that it takes more than 4000 times the time to do something then what it actually does normally take to do it. Imho, this exceeds all reasonable standards, even accounting for several variables in and of 'shorthandeness' and 'being-busy-ness'.

Hence my contemplation that it's structural (decision-making) of ROS (aka, 'the system') or the effort is deemed utterly worthless (see my above comments). Being lazy or forgetful of the persons involved is a theoretical possibility too, of course, but I always concentrated on the other possibilities first.

I hope I made the case that I do not go over one night's ice, I'm not naive enough to think the world and ROS should jump immediately at every suggestion I make (as it is often portrayed here by some), I've calculated reasonable amounts of time before I complain about something, and I hardly can be called impatient when I wait, on average, 6 months before I dare to make a more 'no- sugarcoated' comment on it.

I wish we could have much more manpower, but it reduces to a couple of g33ks "working for free" something that in the outside-real world could even report us, the g33ks, some dozens of thousands dollars(just try to check how much a whole IGG campaign costs in any Marketing "drugstore", and it costs a lot because the time it really consumes)..

You mean geeks that work for free on newsletters, wallpapers, wikipages, and site-translations?

It could be these are not included in there, of course. Because it stands to reason that otherwise, ignoring or wasting time of those kind of geeks would also reduce 'manpower', obviously.

I feel so sorry I couldn't upload your Summary, but we're sending a Summary to all the emails who have joined the Community Edition mailing list. So it is not that we don't like your idea, but that we've upgraded to a new, even more awesome, level.

I'd feel bad with myself if the reason of not hanging your Summary would have been Laziness. However, be sure, I haven't been lazy at all during the last 9 months since the IGG was sketched in a Google Doc. I'm pretty sure you don't doubt about it neither.

I'd feel bad with myself if the reason of not hanging your Summary woud have been that I didn't like your idea but however I pushed you to lose your precious time. This is not the case since now, as said, all the Community edition guys are receiving batch and summaries of the latest Community news mainly thanks to your suggestion.

There is no reason for feeling bad or sorry for things you shouldn't feel bad or be sorry for. It makes little sense. There are myriads upon myriads of potential possibilities for which you could feel bad about, but don't.
In fact, one can *always* make an *endless* list of things where one would or could be sorry for, 'if only', but one isn't because it's 'not the case'. The concept is nonsensical and fruitless, thus. Let's concentrate on where it IS the case, and one, rightfully, feels sorry about, or should feel sorry about.

This leaves only your first example. You couldn't upload my summary, you say. But you said you would. You made me rework it, even. I've reworked it 4 times in total, in effect. Hence, I've put quite some work in it, and it was done in the expectation that it would be used. Now that you are not using it, you SHOULD feel sorry, indeed, but, instead of continuing with a list of why-you-don't-and-shouldn't-feel-sorry, it would be more interesting to know WHY you 'couldn't upload' the newsletter. That would be informative and to the point. Instead you come with rather irrelevant explanations (well, they are not even that, really). For instance, it doesn't matter if the 'idea' is found interesting in relation to the question why you didn't (or still don't) place my newsletter there. If it was just and only the idea you liked, it would have been sufficient to tell me *that* (and preferably in front), and not let me rework my newsletter, for instance. I wasn't putting the effort in making the actual work of making the newsletter just for mentionning 'the idea' of it (for that, only suggesting the idea is sufficient, there is no need to make a newsletter), it was because you said you'd go for it once the IGG campaign had ended.

Imagine you're an artist or a manufacturer and you offered to make some kind of art or good, and the other party says: good, then we'll make an exposé of it/use it. And lets you rework the artwork or consumption-good until he's satisfied. And then you hear nothing anymore for the next 6 months. And when you finally ask (push?), he says "Oh, yeah! Well, I'm sorry, but I 'can't' use your work, but we liked your idea, so we took it and used it in another way. But don't think I was being lazy or didn't like your idea!"

Ermm...yeah...that's a great comfort. I'm sure you'd feel thrilled that you put work into something for nothing but your idea has been liked.

Nope; instead of saying 'sorry' (let alone would-be-sorry) it would be more helpful if you, instead, actually used my work and placed it as a newsletter, as agreed on. Or explain why this is suddenly deemed 'impossible', after letting me rework it several times and waiting for it to appear for six months.

As said, noone around here is billing for the 22 hours/day effort and we just love your ( as Community) encouraging words to keep working for, basically, you.

Hope you can understand that your polite and encouraging words are the only reason to refuel our steam and push the machine further. Encouraging is the only reason there are still some guys around coding for Ros. Hope that will give you a different point of view of our work.

Thanks guys!

Sure. And I hope you don't find me (as community) unduly critical or impatient, after waiting a mere 6 months and not getting even the slightest of feedback during that time that the work I made isn't going to be used after all, instead letting me wait for those 6 months in the apparently idle hope that *at some point* you guys would find the time to implement it. Rest assured that I realise you are not billing anything and thus one can't possibly expect something like an effort of a community member to get done in a meagre six months, nor receive a pm that ones' work was for nothing and won't be used, or the reason why. I'm glad my polite and encouraging words refuel you to continue pushing this smooth-working machine even more. Encouragement is, indeed, a very important issue - albeit not only for the ones coding, but also for the community as a whole, and I'm glad to note this is realised and acted upon. Encouragement is also a two-way street. It is, indeed, this kind of encouragement and supportive treatment that let's one view your (as PR) work in a different light.

[Aeneas]

Just to put it back onto the topic:

I was not asking for anything in particular beyond simply - remover the newsletter 99 from the front page.

I am not saying, "why are there no new newsletters", "whose fault is it", "what will be done in the future". I'm just saying, there is THIS old newsletter there, make it gone. That is 5min's work.

Other than that, the front page is OK, with gigaherz' contributions on the right side, it looks actually fine.

Not even the layout needs to be changed - just make the middle column empty, until you get a new newsletter (whenever that may be).

[Webunny]

Just to put it back onto the topic:

I was not asking for anything in particular beyond simply - remover the newsletter 99 from the front page.

I am not saying, "why are there no new newsletters", "whose fault is it", "what will be done in the future". I'm just saying, there is THIS old newsletter there, make it gone. That is 5min's work.

Other than that, the front page is OK, with gigaherz' contributions on the right side, it looks actually fine.

Not even the layout needs to be changed - just make the middle column empty, until you get a new newsletter (whenever that may be).

Sure, but the fact remains you wanted to get it gone because it was old, but if a new one was placed, it wouldn't be old anymore (obviously), which would mean it doesn't need to be gone anymore neither. While the blogs are nice, they are more fleeting as well, and it would be nice to have (and remain to have) an oversight of the developments in newsletter-form as well. Which was what Vic and I discussed months ago.

As for the 5 minutes it takes: that was what I used to think.

While you are correct and I fully agree with your time-assessment, you'll soon come to the realisation 5 minutes will take about 6 months on average.

[middings]

Newsletter 99, while it was informative, is over a year old. I propose not displaying it any longer, because it just looks like "that project died, it stopped even its newsletter" for the casual observer.

Newsletter explanation:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13010&p=106366#p106366

(Scroll up a little bit after following the link. Z98's remarks are obscured by the non-scrolling bar at the top of the web page.)

I think Aeneas's observation is true. However, I suggest renaming it "newsletter archive" to contrast the no longer produced newsletters with the current live blogs. I think that would be enough to avoid the odor of project death for "the casual observer".

I liked reading the newsletters, I looked forward to seeing new ones, and I still like to read them. They give technical background about the work of the developers and the design choices they make and the older ones reveal the project participants' hopes and ambitions for ReactOS.

[dizt3mp3r]

Good ideas

[Webunny]

Newsletter 99, while it was informative, is over a year old. I propose not displaying it any longer, because it just looks like "that project died, it stopped even its newsletter" for the casual observer.

Newsletter explanation:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13010&p=106366#p106366

(Scroll up a little bit after following the link. Z98's remarks are obscured by the non-scrolling bar at the top of the web page.)

I think Aeneas's observation is true. However, I suggest renaming it "newsletter archive" to contrast the no longer produced newsletters with the current live blogs. I think that would be enough to avoid the odor of project death for "the casual observer".

I liked reading the newsletters, I looked forward to seeing new ones, and I still like to read them. They give technical background about the work of the developers and the design choices they make and the older ones reveal the project participants' hopes and ambitions for ReactOS.

There is nothing wrong with the newsletters on themselves, as long as they are more up to date. the whole point was to make new ones, based on the technical blogs, as a sort of longer lasting compilation and summarisation. The blogs are nice, but a bit fleeting in nature, and not always directly related to the technical development of ROS. It's clear not everything that would traditionally go into a newsletter is currently going into the blogs; there is actually a lot more going in there, and it's not always as relevant towards ROS (technical) developments. And, as said, it's far more fleeting. And it doesn't provide an oversight.

Just like you, I liked reading the newsletters. Granted, it takes some work and time to compile/summarise the blogs into a newsletter, but that was exactly the work that I did, which is why I'm a bit pissed it now seems to be discarded anyway. For what have I been working, then?

I still think the idea is good, and I'm still willing to put effort in it, but only if something is done with it, obviously.

[rachid]

Newsletter 99, while it was informative, is over a year old. I propose not displaying it any longer, because it just looks like "that project died, it stopped even its newsletter" for the casual observer.

+1

[Webunny]

Changing it with a newer newsletter

+2