<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Dec 10, 2012 9:07 AM, "Jaroslav Reznik" <<a href="mailto:jreznik@redhat.com">jreznik@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> ><br>
> > That seems reasonable too.<br>
><br>
> Or the Talking Points could just be cut from the Announcement<br>
> section - not to have dozens documents.<br>
><br>
> Still I'd like to see more detailed Talking Points than<br>
> Announcement (but less details than RN). And currently we're<br>
> in cycle as SOP for Announcement says it's created based on<br>
> TP ;-)<br>
><br>
> So let's switch it - Talking Points are created before<br>
> Announcement, Marketing cut a bit of details for Announcement<br>
> and polishes it + adds all that nice words around... Do you<br>
> think it could work this way?<br>
><br>
> Jaroslav</p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm just becoming acquainted with this process, so take my comments with spoonful of salt : </p>
<p dir="ltr">As described in this thread, I see the true value of the talking points as a staging resource used by docs and marketing to construct the release announcement. We certainly need a place to hack over the copy, but it could just as easily be done as a draft release announcement. </p>
<p dir="ltr">The other obvious use of the Talking Points is copyfodder tech journalists. Journalists who want more information than presented in the release announcement should arguably be reading the release notes. If the release notes themselves have become so esoteric that they can't be understood without interpretation, I take that as a sign that we need to improve the release notes. The majority of articles I've seen on new releases are of two varieties, either brief comments introducing the unedited release announcement, or a walk through of using the livecd as shipped. Writers who want to delve deeper into the release already have resources available. </p>
<p dir="ltr">In short, I agree with Ben - it seems redundant . Docs and marketing time is a finite resource that I think could be better spent. </p>
<p dir="ltr">--Pete</p>