[TAG] (forw) Re: [lg-announce] Linux Gazette #126 is out!
Benjamin A. Okopnik
ben at linuxgazette.net
Fri Jun 9 20:05:46 MSD 2006
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 03:47:53PM +0100, Thomas Adam wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 12:59:15AM -0400, Benjamin A. Okopnik wrote:
> > almost no response to that post. I wouldn't call that "absolutely no
> > discussion whatsoever", but feel free to describe it as you will.
> I don't remember that email. So I apologise for that -- not that replying
> to it now helps, of course.
It's the one with the same exact subject as at the top of this email,
believe it or not. I'll quote a part for easy searching:
For the past three issues, Heather's work (as I understand it) has kept
her too busy to do the TAG/Mailbag bits; since issue 123, we've been
talking to essentially dead air - or at least into a buffer. This month,
Kat has volunteered to take over that load, and did a mistressful job of
cranking out what I considered to be a damned good version of it - this,
sans scripts or any kind of style guide or anything else of the sort.
Manually, that is. All of it done yesterday, from start to finish in
about five hours.
> > If learning a new process is so horrible, then why are you insisting
> > that Kat should do it? If it's not, then what's the big deal -
> > especially since this one works miles better than the old one *and*
> > results in an integrated system for LG, without broken HTML, CSS,
> > etc.?
> I'm not insisting. That's the *cool* thing about all of this. I'm trying
> to see how it all fits in above and beyond the old stuff. I see now that
> it's all meant to be quicker, and so much the better. As long as it
> works, I'm all for that.
Thomas... thank you. That's the thing I've been trying to say from the
beginning. This system is supposed to make life easier on everyone
involved; it would be great if you'd get together with Kat and see how
you two can share info-bits about the process so that everybody's up to
speed. I think you'll like it.
> > If you want to be a backup person
> > for Mailbag, etc., then please do take a look at it - but no one is
> > requiring you to struggle and learn anything. I've asked for help in
> OK. I'll take a look.
> > a great number of other areas of LG, and even listed them; you and
> > Heather both ignored them.
> Really? Would you mind telling me what I missed, just for my own sake?
I quote myself, from a response to Heather in Lgang three days ago:
There's writing the
Heatherblurb, creating the cover, doing the Laundrette (now that, as
you've mentioned, Jimmy may be off-line indefinitely (which SUCKS!!!)),
perhaps implementing that idea I had about in-article pull quotes; the
KnowledgeBase could definitely stand to get updated, I could use a lot
of help in proofing articles, maybe getting hold of some new cartoon
sources - Ecol is getting pretty thin, Jon Harsem has dropped out of
sight, and I've burned through the 'toons that Shane Collinge sent me -
there's *a lot* of stuff to do, and I sure wouldn't mind a hand.
> > What if there are no "work allocations" necessary, and the job now
> > requires one person instead of three?
> Then, as I said in some other email, sideways move me and whomever
> elsewhere to where we're best needed for that month, etc.
May the Universe bless your heart, Thomas. This is exactly what I wanted
to hear from everyone involved, preferably along with an idea of what
they'd prefer to do.
(No, "watching dancing girls while being fed /fois gras/" is not useful.
> > If there's one question here that I'd like for you to answer, Thomas,
> > it's this: are you saying that two people should be shoehorned into a
> > process where they'd be useless when there's so much to do elsewhere?
> No -- and if you reread my initial replies to that long thread on LGang,
> you'll quite clearly see me saying that if there's too many people working
> on one area to sideways move them. Speaking for myself, *I* am happy to
> do just that.
Again, thank you for your offered help; I value it highly.
> > Cool, then; I'll stop trying to soften the impact of people fucking
> > up, and just expose it when it lands. Up until now, I'd been taking
> > all the responsibility for people not delivering what they promised;
> > since this is what you see as bullshit, then that'll stop here and
> > now.
> Careful, Ben. I have not once said nor implied that what I see is
> "bullshit". I deliberately am not getting involved with that discussion.
> I admire both yourself and Heather a great deal, and I'd rather not get
> scorched in the cross-fire.
I'm sorry; that was unnecessarily harsh out of frustration, and I
apologize and withdraw it.
> > Gosh, imagine my surprise. Also, imagine my surprise that no one's
> > noticed the 'grate me' factor of the piles of shit that have been
> > thrown in my direction. But then, I suppose, that's supposed to be
> > part of my job.
> Maybe -- I wouldn't know the first thing of being an editor, and I have to
> say if it's anything like what I am observing now, I wouldn't want to be,
> I don't think.
That's what I see myself being told to swallow and keep quiet - and I
just won't. That's what I'm refusing to accept. I'm happy to work with
people who want to contribute, but I can't keep on wrestling with
unnecessary difficulty every single month.
> > Have I mentioned that the fucking thing is up for grabs? I'm about as
> > ready to walk away from it as I've ever been.
> Then you'd be an idiot if you were to do that. Stupid arguments aside, I
> enjoy working with you -- your input into LG has been important, valued
> (yes, really!), and furthered it into the magazine we see today, and that
> more people are starting to read. That cannot be a bad thing, and it's a
> personification if you will of your work, and all the other people that
> produce it.
Oh... thank you, Thomas. Thank you so much. I'm glad to hear that you
find my work important and useful; that means a tremendous amount to me.
Maybe I'm some sort of a fame junkie (yeah, *right*), but I feel way the
hell under-recognized most of the time. This is like a drink of cool
water in the desert.
> I wasn't being funny when I said I'd rather be _told_ what to do for this
> month -- I meant it as fact. I've already said to Kat I'd proof-read and
> check the technical side of things for her, which I will do. If you feel
> as well that I could be useful elsewhere in *addition* to be fulfilling
> that role with Kat, then just shout. That's all I meant by it.
I'll do my best. Thanks for the support.
* Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://linuxgazette.net *
More information about the TAG