Chatham House Rule
Chatham House Rule
Posted May 3, 2017 19:10 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1)In reply to: Chatham House Rule by tialaramex
Parent article: The rise of copyright trolls
As you say, you have to rely on editorial prudence. Please assume that such prudence has been applied here in the best way Jake knew. Talk of "extra work" for somebody who has already crossed an ocean for the sole purpose of covering this event is a bit misplaced, in my opinion...
Posted May 3, 2017 20:15 UTC (Wed)
by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
[Link]
Posted May 4, 2017 7:36 UTC (Thu)
by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)
[Link] (12 responses)
Was there really need for Jake to cross the ocean? Don't get me wrong, I can see why Intel, the LF and RH would fund this. But if the sole purpose of going there was to take down and reproduce what was said, is that so much preferable, for LWN subscribers, to LWN linking to the PR coverage these companies and their trade association would then pay someone else to produce[0]? For this subscriber, it wouldn't be preferable. And would also save Jake the inconvenience of two transatlantic flights. [0] Or if they wouldn't bother if it weren't for LWN (doubtful), I'm sure the FSFE would have incentive enough to put out a summary of their own event.
Posted May 4, 2017 13:45 UTC (Thu)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted May 4, 2017 15:54 UTC (Thu)
by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
[Link] (4 responses)
We only get something out of the articles that result. Sending people to conferences may be necessary to make that possible, but it is not a goal in itself (or at least, it's not a goal _for your subscribers_).
As originally presented it seemed as though the situation is that Jake goes to a conference, he hears a whole bunch of interesting stuff, but the only bit he's going to report on (and thus the only value to LWN's subscribers) is this one panel session, and only the session itself not the accompanying Q&A or other material. I am not interested in stopping you or Jake doing that, but I did want to make clear above that I don't like it.
Now, subsequently there's another article from the same conference, so evidently there are at least two (maybe three? or more?) articles from the conference, and that changes the equation a bit. And obviously you will have known that (and will know if there's more to come) which we did not. So you have a different picture of the value proposition, and of course you may value background (e.g. now Jake knows how specific people feel about some of the issues, even though he won't be reporting that) because that's useful for making future editorial judgements, but we don't get any direct benefit from that either.
Posted May 4, 2017 17:43 UTC (Thu)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (2 responses)
You don't like it and you don't want to stop it? That's not consistent. Maybe you don't actually care that much?
It seems like you're trying to micromanage LWN here.... It's very odd.
Posted May 4, 2017 23:54 UTC (Thu)
by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
[Link] (1 responses)
I think LWN will be better if, for any similar future events, it aims to report what was learned by attending a session under the Chatham House Rule, so that's the opinion I expressed - but I'm not about to throw my toys out of the pram if, as it seems is the case, the chief editor is of the opinion that it's a waste of his time and better to only hint that things were learned that won't be shared.
Posted May 5, 2017 7:11 UTC (Fri)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link]
Or do you often write about punk rock too?
Personally, given their record, I'm happy to give LWN editors the benefit of the doubt. For more info, maybe you could contact the FSFE? It also seems likely that someone from the FSF or SFC was in attendance.
Posted May 4, 2017 17:54 UTC (Thu)
by rahvin (guest, #16953)
[Link]
Posted May 4, 2017 21:43 UTC (Thu)
by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)
[Link]
If the coverage presented neglects to discuss speaker affiliations and relevant information (especially pertinent information that is conspicuously absent from a discussion), but limits itself to summarizing the contents of a presentation or discussion, then its value to subscribers is significantly diminished, yes. Even more so when a panel is, shall we say.. unbalanced? Needless to say, I do expect LWN editors to mention elephants (or smaller animals) in the room, even if the speakers do not discuss them. In fact, what is maximized by this style of coverage is LWN's value to travel sponsors who want to make sure a message or narrative reaches an audience (developers) that their PR departments don't have easy access to. Note, I'm not saying that LWN editors are conciously choosing to produce this kind of coverage to maximize their their chances of getting travel assistance. Rather, that there is a potential synergy that needs to be acknowledged as any conflict of interest would be. On that note, it would be useful to go on record as to who was the initiator when LWN receives travel assistance for attending an event. Did the editors request it or was it offered? Disclosing a funding relationship does not cure it, of course. I hope LWN could get to the point where subscription revenue is high enough that travel costs would not be an issue, but accept that this might never be the case. Even putting aside potential issues with the sponsoring though, this style of coverage is still way too cavalier about amplifying what might be a biased version of a particular story (e.g. see footnote 0 in this comment). FWIW, I do appreciate the summaries of (necessarily) selected conference presentations, as otherwise, even if the videos were available, some of us wouldn't have the time or motivation to take a look at each talk (or panel, as the case may be). Video or audio recordings are really bad for skimming. For events that are not recorded (and there's no reason why they should be), having an LWN editor summarize them is the next best thing to being there. That said, I would gladly trade off most conference coverage for more in-depth technical articles and comprehensive, responsible (i.e. pointing out of factual errors and gross misrepresentations) summarization of ongoing discussions in mailing lists and other forums of the communities LWN usually concerns itself with. If it saves our editors any time in cattle-class seats, that would be a great bonus.
Posted May 9, 2017 8:04 UTC (Tue)
by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)
[Link] (4 responses)
Can I bring this up again? In the interest of increased transparency, can our editors (in the future) extend their disclosure parties who provided travel assistance with the information on whether they were offered the funds or asked for them of their own accord? Also, could we have a ballpark estimation for the percentage of events LWN was invited, as well as sponsored, to attend in the last few years? If there are events that LWN was invited to cover, are there any obvious commonalities in those requests (e.g. a specific travel sponsor or event)? Thanks.
Posted May 9, 2017 8:19 UTC (Tue)
by gevaerts (subscriber, #21521)
[Link]
Posted May 9, 2017 13:16 UTC (Tue)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (2 responses)
On the other hand, we do publish nearly 20 years of history which, I believe, shows a consistent and clear picture of where LWN is coming from. That was achieved at some considerable personal cost, including far too much time spent on airplanes and away from home. Yet you're saying that we can be somehow bought by offering us yet another economy-class transoceanic experience. I could get fairly offended if I weren't so busy giggling at the prospect.
Posted May 9, 2017 14:42 UTC (Tue)
by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)
[Link] (1 responses)
For people who think you might be 'bought', you're already putting up the information on who provides travel assistance for LWN editors. So (obviously, I might add) that was not my concern or implication. My concern is that the style of reporting practiced and defended by articles such as this (i.e. only summarizing what was said, refusing to check facts as common practice (e.g. first footnote here and subsequent reply), choosing not to point out items which are clearly left off the agenda) is a disservice to LWN as a subscriber-oriented site. Given that LWN (apparently; I honestly apologize if I have gotten the wrong impression from the comments by the staff) will dutifully reproduce the presentations and discussions at an event for its (primarily developer) audience, it makes sense to want to know which organizations want to promote which events to this audience. If you do not want to provide such information that is your prerogative (though it'd be helpful if we knew why). In my eyes, the situation is analogous to the transparency you currently practice re: travel sponsoring. Admittedly, "LWN attended this event on the invitation and sponsoring of Org X" might not sound great (though if it doesn't sound good to your ears, you might stop and consider why). But, as you say, 20 years of history assures us of the good faith efforts of the LWN editors. What is also assured though, is that bias in reporting is not only a matter of personal integrity. If I may quote another comment out of context: With that in mind, I hope that you (or any other editor at LWN) no longer feel you have a reason to be offended. And perhaps that you'll reconsider the suggestion re: increased transparency.
Posted May 9, 2017 15:15 UTC (Tue)
by aggelos (subscriber, #41752)
[Link]
Chatham House Rule
Chatham House Rule
Talk of "extra work" for somebody who has already crossed an ocean for the sole purpose of covering this event is a bit misplaced, in my opinion...
OK, so I must admit to being totally confused by that comment. Are you saying it's not worthwhile for LWN to attend conferences? If only we'd known, we could have saved all of that cattle-class time all these years...
Confused
Confused
Confused
Confused
Confused
Confused
Confused
Confused
On that note, it would be useful to go on record as to who was the initiator when LWN receives travel assistance for attending an event. Did the editors request it or was it offered?
Confused
We don't track who mentions travel funding first, sorry.
Confused
Confused
People are prone to bias. Even the best of people. They may not even be aware of it themselves. The way these biases work is that professionals can convince themselves they are doing the right thing as part of it. You need to openly acknowledge interests that might bias things (as is best practice in the medical world, e.g.) to have a hope of countering it. And generally be systematic about counter-balancing self-interest-bias - cause humans _are_ very prone to it.
Confused