[python-advocacy] Proposal for Monthly podcast series

[Laura Creighton]

In a message of Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:01:05 CDT, Ralph writes:
>On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 10:04 +0200, Laura Creighton wrote:
>> I think that whether this works depends on whether you are the sort of
>> person who watches podcasts for fun.  I'm not, but I don't own a tv
>> either.  So in order to get me to watch a podcast at all, it has to be
>  Watching one of this could be a Zen exercise of some sort, I guess.
>These are going to be audio podcasts, suitable for listening to on your
>portable music player.  To watch would be to see the clock counter move
>up.

This absolutely, definitely will not work for me, but then I'm not
your target audience.

<snip>

>> >Your concern about being seen to endorse a project
>> >is one I have thought about.  We need to say somehow that this is
>> >basically a research project.  The projects we talk about are good
>> >enough to be worth learning about.  
>> 
>> I don't understand this.  If you are saying that 'these projects are
>> research projects' then you will offend those creators who think of
>> their projects as completely ready for commercial deployment right
>> now.  If, instead, you are saying 'the podcasts are to be thought of as
>> a research project', ah, how does that follow?  What is research about
>  The point here is that Jeff is doing research into projects he has not
>used.  Not every project he researches turns out to be interesting.  The
>ones that are interesting enough are the ones we will do a podcast
>about.  Interesting here can mean the code is novel in some way we want
>to talk about.  It might mean that the project is worth using.  We'll
>need more than 12 projects to study in a year, because we may not find
>enough to say about every project we look at.
>> it?  Promote something and then measure if it gets more popular?  But
>> that's the whole reason for the caution.
>
>> If it is seen as a PSF action it ought to, and there is the rub.
>> 
>  I don't propose this as a PSF action.  I do want feedback from this
>group, because the purpose of the podcast is to highlight the use of
>Python.
>
> If we produce an interesting show, I bet we will find an audience.
>And, I think it will help the promotion of Python.

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?

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 
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
audience.

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.  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.
Thus your mark as a promoter-of-certain programs is likely to be larger 
than your mark as a promoter-of-python.

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.  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_.

Laura