[arch-dev-public] Guidelines for news posting

[Sven-Hendrik Haase]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 07:01, Sven-Hendrik Haase <svenstaro at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 01:14, Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public <
> arch-dev-public at archlinux.org> wrote:
>
>> [2020-01-06 23:11:57 +0100] Sven-Hendrik Haase via arch-dev-public:
>> > Every news post needs to have a corresponding draft submitted to
>> > arch-dev-public and wait for feedback for at least 24 hours unless:
>> >     1. it is urgent (and would be too late after 24 hours)
>> >     2. it is a simple --overwrite rule, or
>> >     3. there are strong reasons for the team member posting the draft to
>> > believe that it should not be visible to the public before it is
>> announced.
>> > In this third case, the draft should be submitted to the
>> > staff at lists.archlinux.org ML instead.
>>
>> That sounds great, Sven, thank you.
>>
>> I would however propose to remove rule 2. Mostly because I don't like
>> exceptions and also because we should try our best to keep the number of
>> such announcements to a minimum.
>>
>> Cheers.
>>
>> --
>> Gaetan
>>
>
> Since I haven't heard any further objections or feedback on this, I'm
> going make a PR adding this to archweb on the news posting page:
>
> Every news post needs to have a corresponding draft submitted to
> arch-dev-public and wait for feedback for at least 24 hours unless:
>     1. it is urgent (and would be too late after 24 hours)
>     2. there are strong reasons for the team member posting the draft to
> believe that it should not be visible to the public before it is announced.
> In this third case, the draft should be submitted to the
> staff at lists.archlinux.org ML instead.
>

Somebody made me aware privately about a typo so now the text is:

Every news post needs to have a corresponding draft submitted to
arch-dev-public and wait for feedback for at least 24 hours unless:
    1. it is urgent (and would be too late after 24 hours)
    2. there are strong reasons for the team member posting the draft to
believe that it should not be visible to the public before it is announced.
In this second case, the draft should be submitted to the
staff at lists.archlinux.org ML instead.