[TAG] (forw) Re: [lg-announce] Linux Gazette #126 is out!

[Benjamin A. Okopnik]

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 *