Making an Open Source Project Press-Friendly 169
blackbearnh writes "Corporations know that part of launching a successful project is projecting the right image to the media. But a lot of open source projects seem to treat the press as an annoyance, if they think about it at all. For a reporter, even finding someone on a project who's willing to talk about it can be a challenge. Esther Schindler over at IT World has a summary of a roundtable discussion that was held at OSCON with pointers about how open source projects can be more reporter-accessible. 'Recognize that we are on deadline, which for most news journalists means posting the article within a couple of hours and for feature authors within a couple of days. If we ask for input, or a quote, or anything to which your project spokesperson (you do have one? yes? please say yes) might want to respond, it generally does mean, "Drop everything and answer us now." If the journalist doesn't give you a deadline ("I need to know by 2pm"), it's okay to ask how long you can take to reach the right developer in Poland, but err on the side of "emergency response." It's unreasonable, I know, but so are our deadlines.'"
Re:It's not an emergency (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it's not an emergency ... but I just got this assignment five minutes ago and I have to have it done in three hours because my boss said to have it done in three hours so he can put in on the web in three hours and 15 minutes and because he's planning to drop something else on my desk in three hours and five minutes. Man, I don't have an option here. Can you help me, please?
Re:It's all about the money (Score:3, Interesting)
some journalists tend to write about certain corporations they have stocks in.
I don't doubt that what you say is true, but I'd like to point out for the people who will inevitably take your statement as gospel that this practice is generally regarded as a breach of journalistic ethics. The New York Times company, for example specifically prohibits [nytco.com] journalists who cover business stories from playing the market.
The trade press is less stringent about such things, but good journalists everywhere are well aware of financial conflicts in their reporting and take steps to mitigate such. Some tech reporters I know choose not to invest in any technology stocks. I myself own no individual stocks in any tech companies, though I do hold some mutual funds which may or may not contain such stocks. I invest based solely on the performance of the fund and make no particular effort to find out what specific companies may be represented.
As with any field, there are always a few bad apples.
Re:It's not an emergency (Score:1, Interesting)
If you are getting assignments on that short of notice, you should know the field you are reporting well enough and be actively following it closely enough to have completed your research before getting the assignment. It is simply impossible to write a good article in that short of time, and by attempting to do so you are only going to misrepresent the issues at hand.
And if you're just going to be pumping out trash articles with no research, many of us would prefer to not be written about at all.
Re:annoyance (Score:2, Interesting)
...and reporters wonder why we're not delighted to hear from them.
A salient point.
Some years ago, I wrote a peer-to-peer IM client that used Blowfish. I didn't want anything for it, but I wanted to put it out there. At the time, in order to comply with federal BXA guidelines regarding encryption, I felt that my easiest choice was to open-source it (and notify the government that it existed, and where they could get it, and make an attempt to prevent anyone from the Big7 from downloading it, and...).
It wasn't long before I was contacted by someone from a Well Respected Computing Magazine. I was thrilled: my little side project was about to be reviewed in a big magazine, and get a lot of publicity! But they kept pestering me for screenshots in some specific DPI and some specific resolution. I'm not a graphics person, I didn't know how to supply whatever they wanted, I sent over some screenshots but they weren't print-worthy. So I wound up signing a release for them to take their own screenshots so long as I received a proof prior to printing.
I got a proof, and then a big bundle of 50 copies of the finished product, cool. My app got a mention in that Notorious Computing Magazine, alongside some competing apps which, coincidentally, were all payware. Theirs all had pretty screenshots, mine didn't. I was just a lone developer who'd written something to communicate securely long before the days of Pidgin and OTR. And while the for-profit folks got lots of flashy pics in the magazine, I got a (flattering, admittedly) paragraph with no pics.
I've dealt with technology journalists several times since then. What I've found is that they tend to be very interested, and very motivated, but extremely susceptible to buzzwords and fluff and flashy screenshots. Believe it or not (heh), a lot of the folks who write for tech magazines aren't techies. They're writers who happen to have landed at a tech magazine.
They're also generally beholden to industry contacts and their publishers' marketing departments, through a surprisingly transparent payola system which infects the entire gamut of publications. If you're fortunate enough to be on the comp list for eWeek, ComputerWorld, NetworkWorld, Baseline, etc. you see the same bias week after week. To me, Gartner and its "analysts" aren't worth much, but looking through the various trade rags I get every week, you'd think they're industry gods.
Three words to that: Maureen. O'Gara. SCO.
I've long since declined to respond to press inquiries for anything I do. If I ever again create anything worthy of press, I'll hire my own PR person to spin it my way.
Marketing does not believe docs are important. (Score:4, Interesting)
Here is a guess: The technically knowledgeable people are paid to develop products. Management considers them too expensive to document what they do.
Instead, Oracle management hires marketing people to supervise the development of the web site and documentation. The marketing people have no interest in technology -- none. They are bored with their jobs. They secretly think that technically knowledgeable people are inferior. They do, however, learn some buzz-words so that they can pretend that they understand.
The marketing people don't believe technical communication is important. They have seen numerous examples of people being able to use Oracle products even though the documentation is poor. The web site and product manuals are either almost useless or written for people who already understand the products. Editing for clarity is very limited.
The writers are hired as consultants. When a writer doesn't understand something, he or she just doesn't document it, or gives a limited explanation.
Oracle web site page chosen completely at random: Oracle Database Management Packs [oracle.com].
Quote (Title): "Get Maximum Performance With ROI of 100%" Translation: Meaningless.
Quote (First sentence): "Oracle provides an integrated management solution for managing Oracle database with a unique top-down application management approach." Translation: Meaningless. A "management solution for managing a management approach"? But... It's "integrated"! And, notice the grammatical error. It should be "managing Oracle databases".
When I see trash like that I feel sad. I sometimes think I should contact the board of directors and ask to be CEO, so that the company will have adult supervision. I'm being sarcastic, but I really do feel genuinely sad about corporate self-defeat.
More sarcasm: Will the combination of Oracle and Sun be called "Snoracle"?
Seriously: Will PostgreSQL [postgresql.org] eventually be the world's most popular database software? To me, those two quotes from the Oracle web site are a very effective ad for PostgreSQL.
Re:Reporters aren't the only one with deadlines (Score:4, Interesting)
"If you want me to have fuller information, please answer my phone call or e-mail."
And I think that's the whole story. It was you wanting my information, not me wanting you to publish it, remember?
"Use plain language, not jargon."
What you think to be "jargon" *is* "plain language". "Jargon" is the plainest, most concise and precise way to say something. That's known from the days of Euclides: there's no royal paths even for kings, remember?
Again, you are the one with the problem: an article asked by your boss, and again you are trying to pass your burden to something else. You want others to stay by *your* deadlines and you want others to cover *your* ignorance in the issues you are about to comment. You even ask others to write *your* article for you (I won't go through the FAQs; I won't take the time to read the "about" page or wander a bit through your web site: I want a copy-and-paste "for press" resource").
"Everyone trying to get press coverage should read it"
I understand what you mean, and I take you as right... provided that sentence. But we were not talking here about someone wanting "to get press coverage" but about someone wanting to make an unasked for press release. If *I* want something, it's my burden to do what it takes to have it done (like having fast reponse and doing sensible efforts to make things easy for the press guys). But if *you* want something, then it's your problem, not mine.
Re:Do your own damn work (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the point is to have say 90% the information IN ONE PLACE!
Not spread over 20,000 source code comments and 60 wiki pages.
If YOU don't know what you are developing why expect anyone else to?
Of course if you are really in the business of developing abandonware then ignore all of this.