Summary/Minutes for Wednesday's FESCo meeting (2012-12-05)

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 7.12.2012 15:06, Jaroslav Reznik napsal(a):
> ----- Original Message -----
>> It doesn't matter from a "get this thing into Fedora" standpoint.  It
>> very much matters from a marketing/communication standpoint.  If it
>> didn't matter, Fedora Marketing wouldn't be picking specific items
>> out
>> of the overall Feature list.
>>
>> The example I used in the meeting (which btw you should really go
>> read
>> the full logs at this point because all I'm doing is repeating
>> myself)
>> is that if you give a tech journalist a list of 10 Features, they can
>> write a pretty decent article about what is coming in the next Fedora
>> release.  If you give them a list of 20-30 Features, they're either
>> going to ignore you entirely or pick 10 Features they think are worth
>> writing about.
> That's the problem - FeatureList should not be used tech journalists
> at all! It's internal tracking "tool". For journalists, we have Talking
> Points [1] - originally written for Ambassadors! (And yep, good time to
> spin it up). We have Beats... Announcements based on these with picked
> up the most important features without going into too much details -
> easier for journalist to create a good article. Feature list changes
> too often, it could be out of sync, feature pages are written for
> technical people, usually hard to understand etc...
>
> And yeah, as I understand - Features were created for marketing
> purposes. So let's not call that internal list features list but use
> some other term and then with cooperation with marketing and docs
> pick up let say ten most important things that happened in recent
> release and feature them as The Features. But marketing POV should not
> limit our development tracking ;-)
>
> [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_talking_points
>
> Jaroslav

Agree.

>> Some Features are more important than others.  I want FESCo involved
>> in reviwing the ones that are big, have an impact across the distro,
>> are somewhat controversial, and have the potential to require a lot
>> of
>> coordination.  Whatever we call those, that is what I want reviewed.

There is no reason why FESCo couldn't pick such important features by 
themselves and review them. And keep the rest auto-approved. I guess our 
views are not that different. You just try to apply some measure to 
categorize features (or whatever we call those) where I say it is not 
possible. The amount of response of ML might be good guide for that, 
since we don't have any better.

Vít

>> josh
>> --
>> devel mailing list
>> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel