[python-advocacy] Proposal for Monthly podcast series
sfreader at sbcglobal.net
Wed Jun 20 07:33:47 CEST 2007
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 09:44 +0200, Laura Creighton wrote:
> I'm going to try this again.
> The problem is that by selecting certain projects, and not others,
> you will, by definition, be publicising them. What should the
> attitude of people's who projects are reviewed be to this? People
> whose projects are not reviewed?
No, we understand that. But, I am glad to have you make the point
because it is a good one. I hope the project is successful enough that
these competing projects will lobby us for attention. That is where the
short interview segments would come from. We have to start with some
projects. I think we have to do smaller projects so we can go into some
depth in 30 to 60 minutes. I should also say that I am not making the
final decisions here. I am probably the one puching hardest on the
concept, but it will be a group effort. My guess is we will call it a
project of the DFW Pythoneers. I will help select projects and do
research and help write the scripts, but I am one voice. I'll tell you
what I think, but I want feedvack and then we'll talk about it at the
local group. We meet 3 times every month. Our next meeting is a 2 hour
dJango tutorial, so we will probably talk about it on the second
Saturday of July.
Anyway, we will pick an initial slate of projects and start working on
them. If we do this for a while, we will get around to lots of Python
projects. I hope most of the authors of the projects we pick will be
pleased. I bet they won't be, because we might say bad things too. We
are not going after advertiser. We are trying to produce useful
commentary. As for the projects we don't pick, I hope they contact us
for future shows. That would be a small sign we are succeeding.
> Part of this will depend on your skill at constructing podcasts, and
> your general amount of wisdom. Part of this will depend on how
> critical you are when you review. Will you take special pains to
> go after the shortcomings of whatever you are reviewing, or will
> you glass over them and focus on the positive things that each
We are beginners at producing podcasts. Jeff has done some audio
recording at conferences. I have some some audio processing. I bet the
first show or two never go out because we won't be happy with them.
Where the shortcomings are important to us, we will mention them. One
thing I know is this. I have had successful writer tell me to write the
kind of things you would want to consume. I know I'd love to find a
podcast like this and I will use that as my guide. Then, we will see
what is most successful and pander appropriately ;-) Jeff said I had to
get a smiley face in the message somewhere :-)
> offering can do? What tone will you take? Informative? Funny?
> Man-on-the-Street? Hard-to-Impress? Easily-Impressed? Talking to
> an audience? self-diary? Message-in-the-Bottle ? These editorial
> stances can effect, and in some cases determine the reaction of your
Have you heard Jeff talk at conferences? That is his natural tone and
I don't want to try to change him. I may try to punch it up with a few
bad puns. I expect the style will evolve and we will definitely want
feedback on how we are doing.
> But there is no point in doing this unless you intend to be successful,
> where success is measured in audience-size. Thus, even if you only
> wish to promote python -- and would prefer if your podcasts have no
> effect on growing the market share of the programs you review, you
> have no way to arrange this.
We intend to be successful. We also intend to have some fun.
Otherwise, it would be too much work.
> And, while it is possible that the existence
> of such podcasts will promote python to people unfamiliar with the
> language -- especially if they are watched for their humour as well
> as their technical content -- what is more likely is that you will be
> broadcasting to an audience of people who already use and love python.
I am more optimistic than you, I think. But, you may be right. The
earlier in the series, the more right I expect you will be.
> Thus your mark as a promoter-of-certain programs is likely to be larger
> than your mark as a promoter-of-python.
And yet, we have to start somewhere. If we pick projects of the right
scope and projects that interest us, them I believe the shows will be
more worth listening to.
> Which is something that needs to be prepared for, ahead of time. As
> far as I can tell, your policy for people who are unhappy that a
> competing, and to their mind, inferior product got a great podcast
> review while theirs was overlooked entirely, is to say 'Oh well, it
> was just what I happened to be working on.' Which gives the message
> 'why should you be taking me all that seriously, anyway?' And that is
> the wrong message.
That is not what we'll say. We will say we made the best choices we
could to start and we invite comments from other projects. I think your
concern shows me that we will need to address this on our wiki and in
the introduction to the series.
> If you don't want to be taken seriously, then
> you shouldn't do this in the first place. And if you _do_ want to
> be taken seriously, then you cannot afford such a message at a
> time before you are taken seriously. And if you _succeed_, and
> reach the point where no amount of self-deprication can hurt you
> in the eyes of your loyal fans -- well, then such remarks, even if
> sincere are only seen as disingenuous.
> So, better to make a plan. Either a plan for selecting programs,
> or a plan for allowing rebuttals, or allowing other people to make
> podcasts too -- or _something_.
I had an initial plan for selecting programs. I am getting feedback
here and then we will make it more formal at a DFW Python meeting to
come. At least, I will be pushing for that. We will likelly have a
Wiki for comments. I had not thought about it, but we might allow other
podcasts on our feed. We would want to vet them for quality and
language and such. We would not have to agree with the opinions, but we
would want the audio quality to be listenable and for there not to be
any foul language.
Thank you for the comments, Laura
More information about the Advocacy