IMHO only solutions that can be completely implemented by all Fedora users without restrictions are worth mentioning in our promo.
So you can guess my answer ;-)
Jan
----- Original Message ----- From: marketing-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org marketing-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org To: For discussions about marketing and expanding the Fedora user base marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Wed Apr 14 18:38:02 2010 Subject: Re: Advertising "open core" software
On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 18:26 -0400, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
This discussion gets out of hand and doesn't belong here. The original question was if fedora marketing material should promote open core software or not.
Jan,
I shouldn't even be posting on this thread, but do we take any benefits by doing such? And how would we cross those beneficts vs our current work load? Should we drop FOSS assignments for it?
That's pretty much the only thing I could say. Not turning up or down, neither want to crash no one's parade.
nelson
We are not discussing feature wars of whatever project/product.
Jan
----- Original Message ----- From: marketing-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org marketing-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org To: Robert Scheck robert@fedoraproject.org Cc: For discussions about marketing and expanding the Fedora user base marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Wed Apr 14 18:08:58 2010 Subject: Re: Advertising "open core" software
On 04/15/2010 03:23 AM, Robert Scheck wrote
Having this said, I'm pretty sure, that only less Fedora users care about whether Zarafa in Fedora has support for Outlook or not, because most of our Fedora users don't use Windows as their main operating system.
We really don't know much about our users. They might be using Windows or they might be working on a environment where a number of *other users* are using Windows.
Maybe you should see the benefit of what Zarafa open sourced so far: There is a full-featured Open Source MAPI implementation and library by Zarafa, while OpenChange provides in comparision only a few less percent of the overall functionalities and features - they're providing basics, but did you ever try something more extended? It doesn't work or it crashes. OpenChange is not usable in Enterprise so far, while Zarafa (even without the proprietary features) is.
The whole point of MAPI is to talk to folks using Windows. So you can't really argue that Windows is irrelevant to our discussions. Even in a groupware deployment within Red Hat, blackberry integration was considered a blocker for example. No doubt that open source features are useful by itself but it should be taken into consideration that a large scale deployment very likely would have to be buying the proprietary version and IMO that should factor into our considerations of what we promote within Fedora regardless of whether you consider your work in Fedora as a "test bed". I understand you are associated with Zarafa and worked on integrating it into Fedora but my position on this concern around the model we are implicitly promoting rather than anything against the software itself. The question boils down to one simple thing: Should we promote "open core" software prominently within Fedora? You can take Zarafa completely out of the equation and still answer that meaningfully.
By the way, wasn't it you some time ago promoting the Omega Fedora Remix containing closed source software via the Fedora mailing lists?
Common confusion. There is no "closed source" software in Omega. What I include by default is the some software from the RPM Fusion - free repo which are entirely free and open source software. Being patent encumbered in some regions doesn't make it non-free. Anyway this is off-topic to the current discussion. If you have questions on Omega, feel free to mail me offlist about it and I can discuss any concerns in length.
Rahul
marketing mailing list marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
2010/4/15 Jan Wildeboer jwildebo@redhat.com:
IMHO only solutions that can be completely implemented by all Fedora users without restrictions are worth mentioning in our promo.
So you can guess my answer ;-)
Complete implies a closed set of features, and that closed set can be best described as all the features a person will *ever* want up to and including the heat death of the universe.
I would say that for running a mail server in many organisations zarafa would provide a complete implementation that can be done to the fullest by any fedora contributor. Unless he/she has a blackberry. But then again, does sendmail support your blackberry? How about postfix? Maybe we shouldn't promote those either.
Yes, you are correct, fedora should be aligned with products and projects coming from companies that are 100% open source, optimally. As a marketing statement, this should be the way to go. Perhaps you want to use this as leverage with Zarafa to convince them to go more open, rather than just closing off any possibilities you have to use your position as a marketing team to build up a good relationship where a community member has already done the heavy lifting.
-Yaakov
On 04/15/2010 11:28 AM, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
Yes, you are correct, fedora should be aligned with products and projects coming from companies that are 100% open source, optimally. As a marketing statement, this should be the way to go. Perhaps you want to use this as leverage with Zarafa to convince them to go more open, rather than just closing off any possibilities you have to use your position as a marketing team to build up a good relationship where a community member has already done the heavy lifting.
I am more fearful of an opposite possibility. That companies can "buy" themselves in to Fedora marketing. Noboidy brought this up *yet* but soonish someone will propose that companies could "sponsor" this. It is a natural thing to think about but it would be so wrong to do.
And with complete I mean that any fedora user must be able to use all the features of a project in the repos. If whatever part of the expected featureset needs external and possibly non-opne components, we cannot promote it.
Zarafa is not positioning itself on its own website as "All advantages of Micrososft Exchange at 50% of the costs" [1]. The version we have in the repos also seems to have a limit of 3 outlook users according to [2]. So in this specific case I do have some pain in promoting it. I would even go as far as saying that if the version of Zarafa in Fedora really has this 3 user limit it is against the philosophy and spirit of Fedora.
But that is not my call. As Zarafa is in the repos, I am sure this aspect has been throughly checked.
But as outlook integreation is a strong selling point for Zarafa, our users will expect this functionality to work. If it doesn't do that, we have a problem. And that is why I am not supportive of promoting it beyond the fact that Zarafa is in the repo.
jan
[1] http://www.zarafa.com/ [2] http://www.zarafa.com/content/editions
On 04/15/2010 11:41 AM, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
Zarafa is not positioning itself on its own website as "All advantages
The "not" should not be there.
Jan
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
Zarafa is not positioning itself on its own website as "All advantages of Micrososft Exchange at 50% of the costs" [1]. The version we have in the repos also seems to have a limit of 3 outlook users according to [2]. So in this specific case I do have some pain in promoting it. I would even go as far as saying that if the version of Zarafa in Fedora really has this 3 user limit it is against the philosophy and spirit of Fedora.
Get a clue of Zarafa, please. Fedora is shipping the Zarafa Open Source Collaboration, which doesn't include any proprietary software, that means there is no Outlook support at all in Fedora, even not the three mentioned Outlook users from the community edition. The community edition contains proprietary software which can be used up to three Outlook users. And the community edition of Zarafa is the Open Source edition plus the proprietary Outlook support with these given three users. Community != Open Source.
Greetings, Robert
Am Donnerstag, 15. April 2010 11:41:39 schrieb Jan Wildeboer:
I am more fearful of an opposite possibility. That companies can "buy" themselves in to Fedora marketing. Noboidy brought this up *yet* but soonish someone will propose that companies could "sponsor" this. It is a natural thing to think about but it would be so wrong to do.
We promote Fedora and EPEL to companies "as the possibility to have "their" Software packaged/maintained along our guidelines on a stable enviroment with a broad userbase - and that it is good to become a community member by maintaining it together" - with all the benefits that are related - we get more features, users and contributors and they get a out of the box working product in Fedora and EPEL to have a better market penetration. This sounds like a good symbiosis.
And with complete I mean that any fedora user must be able to use all the features of a project in the repos. If whatever part of the expected featureset needs external and possibly non-opne components, we cannot promote it.
"any fedora user" is able to use all the features that zarafa provides to all fedora-users! We do not care for proprietary windows-connectors that are out there to connect to databases, frameworks, application ... in fedora!
Zarafa is not positioning itself on its own website as "All advantages of Micrososft Exchange at 50% of the costs" [1]. The version we have in the repos also seems to have a limit of 3 outlook users according to [2]. So in this specific case I do have some pain in promoting it. I would even go as far as saying that if the version of Zarafa in Fedora really has this 3 user limit it is against the philosophy and spirit of Fedora.
Jan, Zarafa in the Open Source version does not support outlook! And it is not about Outlook or Zarafa marketing!
But that is not my call. As Zarafa is in the repos, I am sure this aspect has been throughly checked.
why mention it then ;)
But as outlook integreation is a strong selling point for Zarafa, our users will expect this functionality to work. If it doesn't do that, we have a problem.
It is about Fedora Users! The Users expect the Zarafa Open Source Framework and this is what they get. With all features!
And that is why I am not supportive of promoting it beyond the fact that Zarafa is in the repo.
We should not discourage the idea to have a good symbioses with other vendors. The Framework is working and can be used with all Features that a Fedora User is able to use.
We should be proud that we are the "first" and only who have zarafa build by ourself in our own infrastructure and not from zarafa itself. It was the community who felt the need to have it in fedora and they made all the work together with Zarafa - and Zarafa even changed licences.
Zarafa is in Fedora and it is a success-story and we should be proud, it reflects perfectly
freedom: freedom to use a Enterprise Groupware without the need to use probrietary connectors or clients
features: the only real working FOSS Groupware with a perfect full featured FOSS Webinterface
first: we are first and only who ship zarafa inside the distribution
friends: it is done by a close symbiosis between Ambassadors (it was me who made started the effort two years ago) Packagers (it was Robert and Jeroen who stand up and made the all the work) Vendor (it was Zarafa who helped and showed will to learn and even changed licences for us!)
cu Joerg
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 13:02 +0200, Joerg Simon wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 15. April 2010 11:41:39 schrieb Jan Wildeboer:
I am more fearful of an opposite possibility. That companies can "buy" themselves in to Fedora marketing. Noboidy brought this up *yet* but soonish someone will propose that companies could "sponsor" this. It is a natural thing to think about but it would be so wrong to do.
We promote Fedora and EPEL to companies "as the possibility to have "their" Software packaged/maintained along our guidelines on a stable enviroment with a broad userbase - and that it is good to become a community member by maintaining it together" - with all the benefits that are related - we get more features, users and contributors and they get a out of the box working product in Fedora and EPEL to have a better market penetration. This sounds like a good symbiosis.
It is strange someone pulls the issue "market penetration" when before on this very same list the topic was aborded in a very different way. I don't believe there is coherence here. So we are expanding or not expanding? So our target is developers or mainstream users ? I'm getting really loose of the real targets of Fedora once more...
And with complete I mean that any fedora user must be able to use all the features of a project in the repos. If whatever part of the expected featureset needs external and possibly non-opne components, we cannot promote it.
"any fedora user" is able to use all the features that zarafa provides to all fedora-users! We do not care for proprietary windows-connectors that are out there to connect to databases, frameworks, application ... in fedora!
Nice. But as Jan mentioned before, the issue is around: Should we promote it or not? We are full of load, it's a waste of manpower to support stuff that comes in a pesky way.
By the way, might not be the best metaphore, but what is Fedora position regarding Tomboy ? why are we not highlighting Tomboy and instead going Gnote way?
Shouldn't we be prioritizing FOSS ?
Zarafa is not positioning itself on its own website as "All advantages of Micrososft Exchange at 50% of the costs" [1]. The version we have in the repos also seems to have a limit of 3 outlook users according to [2]. So in this specific case I do have some pain in promoting it. I would even go as far as saying that if the version of Zarafa in Fedora really has this 3 user limit it is against the philosophy and spirit of Fedora.
Jan, Zarafa in the Open Source version does not support outlook! And it is not about Outlook or Zarafa marketing!
So is it "open core" or "open source"? Mind to explain for dummies, cause now I am confused. Is there two of them?
But that is not my call. As Zarafa is in the repos, I am sure this aspect has been throughly checked.
why mention it then ;)
But as outlook integreation is a strong selling point for Zarafa, our users will expect this functionality to work. If it doesn't do that, we have a problem.
It is about Fedora Users! The Users expect the Zarafa Open Source Framework and this is what they get. With all features!
And that is why I am not supportive of promoting it beyond the fact that Zarafa is in the repo.
We should not discourage the idea to have a good symbioses with other vendors. The Framework is working and can be used with all Features that a Fedora User is able to use.
It seems to me that this is a very grey area.
We should be proud that we are the "first" and only who have zarafa build by ourself in our own infrastructure and not from zarafa itself. It was the community who felt the need to have it in fedora and they made all the work together with Zarafa - and Zarafa even changed licences.
Zarafa is in Fedora and it is a success-story and we should be proud, it reflects perfectly
freedom: freedom to use a Enterprise Groupware without the need to use probrietary connectors or clients
features: the only real working FOSS Groupware with a perfect full featured FOSS Webinterface
first: we are first and only who ship zarafa inside the distribution
friends: it is done by a close symbiosis between Ambassadors (it was me who made started the effort two years ago) Packagers (it was Robert and Jeroen who stand up and made the all the work) Vendor (it was Zarafa who helped and showed will to learn and even changed licences for us!)
cu Joerg
-- marketing mailing list marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
On 04/15/2010 05:11 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
By the way, might not be the best metaphore, but what is Fedora position regarding Tomboy ? why are we not highlighting Tomboy and instead going Gnote way?
Shouldn't we be prioritizing FOSS ?
Disclosure: I am the maintainer of Gnote in Fedora.
Not sure where there is a conflict between promoting FOSS and highlighting Gnote? Gnote is default in Fedora because Fedora Live CD couldn't accommodate Mono apps within the space we had. Since Gnote provided equivalent functionality without occupying much space, it was picked as default. We highlight what we have as default better than what we merely include in the repository. Tomboy continues to be available and maintained by the Fedora desktop team in Fedora.
Rahul
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 17:20 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 04/15/2010 05:11 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
By the way, might not be the best metaphore, but what is Fedora position regarding Tomboy ? why are we not highlighting Tomboy and instead going Gnote way?
Shouldn't we be prioritizing FOSS ?
Disclosure: I am the maintainer of Gnote in Fedora.
Not sure where there is a conflict between promoting FOSS and highlighting Gnote? Gnote is default in Fedora because Fedora Live CD couldn't accommodate Mono apps within the space we had. Since Gnote provided equivalent functionality without occupying much space, it was picked as default. We highlight what we have as default better than what we merely include in the repository. Tomboy continues to be available and maintained by the Fedora desktop team in Fedora.
Rahul
Rahul,
Thanks for the explanation, that really provided me more accurate information. I've readed before somewhere that Fedora went Gnote because Tomboy had connections to Mono. It was a comparative article with highlighted Fedora 12 vs OpenSuSE 11.2 I think. The Live CD wasn't mentioned.
The idea I got from the article was that Gnote was highlighted because it was more inside the FOSS scope that Tomboy which relied on Mono. And in fact I do +1 for Gnote. I used opensuse for quite some time, and I've swapped from Tomboy to Gnote without any issues or problems of any kind. To me it's transparent.
What I meant mainly is, that we have so many FOSS stuff to highlight that we should be careful handling the manpower (free contributors).
I've been flamed countless times for defending a pacific co-existence between proprietary and FOSS despite of all the fuss around. In my humble opinion, it's actually users choice. But if we face Fedora as a FOSS enabler (our main role?), shouldn't we excel in doing that?
My point is that we don't probably have the manpower to cover it, and dropping pure FOSS projects in favor of "open core"... That only gives reason to Jan's concerns.
If we had a pure commercial product (such as Red Hat), it would be probably more relevant to establish a symbiotic relation between "open core" and our so called commercial product, that would for sure bring benefits for all the parties. I don't think advertising directly such project would bring us any benefit. Should be mentioned off-course, but not highlight it as we highlight other projects (for example: NetworkManager).
Like I said before, not trying to crash someone's party.
On 04/15/2010 06:02 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
Rahul,
Thanks for the explanation, that really provided me more accurate information. I've readed before somewhere that Fedora went Gnote because Tomboy had connections to Mono. It was a comparative article with highlighted Fedora 12 vs OpenSuSE 11.2 I think. The Live CD wasn't mentioned.
The idea I got from the article was that Gnote was highlighted because it was more inside the FOSS scope that Tomboy which relied on Mono.
Well the anti-Mono brigade hijacked the news about this change and projected their own motivations to it and I have explained it to some press reports about that and copied this list in fact. My recent blog post on this topic
http://mether.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/gnote-and-fedora/
I had to clarify notions about similar change that is happening with F-Spot being replaced by Shotwell
http://lwn.net/Articles/383249/#Comments
I've been flamed countless times for defending a pacific co-existence between proprietary and FOSS despite of all the fuss around. In my humble opinion, it's actually users choice. But if we face Fedora as a FOSS enabler (our main role?), shouldn't we excel in doing that?
We are not restricting user's choice in any way. but promoting proprietary or even open core software or enabling them in Fedora is a entirely different matter.
Rahul
Am Donnerstag, 15. April 2010 13:41:38 schrieb Nelson Marques:
It is strange someone pulls the issue "market penetration" when before on this very same list the topic was aborded in a very different way. I don't believe there is coherence here. So we are expanding or not expanding?
Nelson, my point was *not* about our market penetration or our expansion philosophy - it is about the market penetration that the vendor tries to get from shipping it in fedora - this is a benefit for the vendor besides all the other i already explained in my previous email.
So our target is developers or mainstream users ? I'm getting really loose of the real targets of Fedora once more...
no further comment here ;) just refer to this: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-October/msg00350....
Nice. But as Jan mentioned before, the issue is around: Should we promote it or not?
I made valid points why it is a success story also in my previous email.
We are full of load, it's a waste of manpower to support stuff that comes in a pesky way.
This wording is a bit unlucky for all the people who put a lot effort into this - and not a valid point!
We should not discourage the idea to have a good symbioses with other vendors. The Framework is working and can be used with all Features that a Fedora User is able to use.
It seems to me that this is a very grey area.
it is pretty clear it is legal in Fedora - it works without the need of additional components - it is Open Source - you can do a fork!
Please Marketing People do not make the same mistake as with Fedora Electronic Lab features - last release!
cu Joerg
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 04:30:10PM +0200, Joerg Simon wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 15. April 2010 13:41:38 schrieb Nelson Marques:
We are full of load, it's a waste of manpower to support stuff that comes in a pesky way.
This wording is a bit unlucky for all the people who put a lot effort into this
- and not a valid point!
This talking point was developed openly here on the Marketing list, and I appreciate the time that Robert put into packaging this 100% open source solution. And that in fact is *part* of the success story -- the ability to have a feature in Fedora that will be helpful to system administrators and users, because a contributor stepped up to do the necessary work.
Fedora also has an ISV SIG that is there to help ISVs understand the path to getting code into Fedora, and we have never discriminated there on the basis of business model as far as I know. I would hate to see the Fedora Project become known as hostile to ISVs, especially when we are making inroads to more stable releases that might incidentally be more hospitable.
Robert gave a full accounting of the nature of the code in Fedora, and the decision to promote it was part of our open, transparent process here on the list and in Marketing meetings several months ago. If we want to talk about placing further restrictions around that process, we can do so for the F-14 time frame.
The freedom of this code is not in question as far as I can tell, especially in light of Robert's post about the details. If there were artificial limits on using the software, that would certainly be against our freedom stance and would call licensing in to question. But Robert has confirmed there's no such problem.
Elsewhere Jan mentioned tweaking the name we use in the details of our release notes and announcements, which is a good point. We can fix the appropriate places on the wiki and our final release notes to effect that change.
We should not discourage the idea to have a good symbioses with other vendors. The Framework is working and can be used with all Features that a Fedora User is able to use.
It seems to me that this is a very grey area.
it is pretty clear it is legal in Fedora - it works without the need of additional components - it is Open Source - you can do a fork!
Please Marketing People do not make the same mistake as with Fedora Electronic Lab features - last release!
Thanks for this reminder Joerg. We don't want to do that.
Am Donnerstag, 15. April 2010 17:15:34 schrieb Paul W. Frields:
Please Marketing People do not make the same mistake as with Fedora Electronic Lab features - last release!
Thanks for this reminder Joerg. We don't want to do that.
ah - Paul - i am guilty to bring up old hats ;)
cu Joerg
On 04/15/2010 01:02 PM, Joerg Simon wrote:
"any fedora user" is able to use all the features that zarafa provides to all fedora-users!
s/Zarafa/Zarafa Open Source version/g
I do fear that if we promote Zarafa in our marketing material (Press releases etc.) that do not *only* target existing Fedora users, it could create a wrong impression.
Zarafa is a brand, the version we ship is a product with some diferences from the "official" versions presented at zarafa.com. If we point out that disticntion, I am relaxed about promoting it.
Jan
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 01:41:47PM +0200, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
On 04/15/2010 01:02 PM, Joerg Simon wrote:
"any fedora user" is able to use all the features that zarafa provides to all fedora-users!
s/Zarafa/Zarafa Open Source version/g
I do fear that if we promote Zarafa in our marketing material (Press releases etc.) that do not *only* target existing Fedora users, it could create a wrong impression.
Zarafa is a brand, the version we ship is a product with some diferences from the "official" versions presented at zarafa.com. If we point out that disticntion, I am relaxed about promoting it.
I don't see any problem with correcting the wording we're using. We can change this to "Zarafa Open Source edition." Robert, does that sound OK to you?
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Paul W. Frields wrote:
I don't see any problem with correcting the wording we're using. We can change this to "Zarafa Open Source edition." Robert, does that sound OK to you?
May we use "Zarafa Open Source Collaboration"? That's what upstream does, usually. But in general, I don't mind whether "Collaboration" or "Edition".
Greetings, Robert
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 06:22:49PM +0200, Robert Scheck wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Paul W. Frields wrote:
I don't see any problem with correcting the wording we're using. We can change this to "Zarafa Open Source edition." Robert, does that sound OK to you?
May we use "Zarafa Open Source Collaboration"? That's what upstream does, usually. But in general, I don't mind whether "Collaboration" or "Edition".
OK, I'd prefer we stick with "edition" because it's clear that we're not using a company's slogan. We're simply shipping a 100% FOSS package, by virtue of the collaboration with Fedora community members.
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 01:41:47PM +0200, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
On 04/15/2010 01:02 PM, Joerg Simon wrote:
"any fedora user" is able to use all the features that zarafa provides to all fedora-users!
s/Zarafa/Zarafa Open Source version/g
I do fear that if we promote Zarafa in our marketing material (Press releases etc.) that do not *only* target existing Fedora users, it could create a wrong impression.
Zarafa is a brand, the version we ship is a product with some diferences from the "official" versions presented at zarafa.com. If we point out that disticntion, I am relaxed about promoting it.
I don't see any problem with correcting the wording we're using. We can change this to "Zarafa Open Source edition." Robert, does that sound OK to you?
I think that one of the distinctions we need to make here is the following: We are not promoting each of these Talking Points / Features individually. The release notes do not serve as a platform to promote / advertise for Zarafa, or for the IntelliJ IDEA IDE.
One-page release notes, alpha and beta announcements, talking points and feature lists exist (among many other purposes, of course) to promote Fedora - not the individual features. What we're doing is providing a compelling -list- of features - in the hopes that people will maybe switch to Fedora, or that existing Fedora users will give them a try. We're informing the user base of what is available, and interesting.
In the case of Zarafa - provided we enhance the wording - I have no issues with leaving it in our materials. I feel even more strongly about the IntelliJ IDEA IDE feature - provided we also highlight that as being a community edition - we should always, always, always be highlighting new developer tools; I, for one would prefer to see people developing and contributing using Fedora as a springboard than any other distro.
FWIW - the beauty of open source is that where these two companies are doing "open core" - other people may step up and fill in those paid-for gaps with true, open source solutions. I also feel that part of our work is to work with these companies to get them to open-source everything - and inform them as to why it would benefit them - rather than to simply say, "You're not meeting our standards." We should always try to show people the light.
In closing - I propose that we leave these two features included in the release notes- with different wording highlighting that they are the "community editions" (or whatever their official community-edition naming is). They are compelling features, both with enough features of their own to make them useful for the majority of the User Base. They're not "teasers" with limits.
I also propose that we mark this issue as something to be resolved in the F14 cycle - namely, that we figure out what we want to do going forward with open core features, and have it written down and set in stone so that we don't have any surprises in future cycles. By "we," I don't mean marketing - just Fedora in general, BTW.
And unless anyone has any disagreements with either of those proposals - I suggest we close this thread and get back to F13 beta and final awesomeness :)
-Robyn
-- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com -- marketing mailing list marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:01:39AM -0700, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 01:41:47PM +0200, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
On 04/15/2010 01:02 PM, Joerg Simon wrote:
"any fedora user" is able to use all the features that zarafa provides to all fedora-users!
s/Zarafa/Zarafa Open Source version/g
I do fear that if we promote Zarafa in our marketing material (Press releases etc.) that do not *only* target existing Fedora users, it could create a wrong impression.
Zarafa is a brand, the version we ship is a product with some diferences from the "official" versions presented at zarafa.com. If we point out that disticntion, I am relaxed about promoting it.
I don't see any problem with correcting the wording we're using. We can change this to "Zarafa Open Source edition." Robert, does that sound OK to you?
I think that one of the distinctions we need to make here is the following: We are not promoting each of these Talking Points / Features individually. The release notes do not serve as a platform to promote / advertise for Zarafa, or for the IntelliJ IDEA IDE.
One-page release notes, alpha and beta announcements, talking points and feature lists exist (among many other purposes, of course) to promote Fedora - not the individual features. What we're doing is providing a compelling -list- of features - in the hopes that people will maybe switch to Fedora, or that existing Fedora users will give them a try. We're informing the user base of what is available, and interesting.
In the case of Zarafa - provided we enhance the wording - I have no issues with leaving it in our materials. I feel even more strongly about the IntelliJ IDEA IDE feature - provided we also highlight that as being a community edition - we should always, always, always be highlighting new developer tools; I, for one would prefer to see people developing and contributing using Fedora as a springboard than any other distro.
FWIW - the beauty of open source is that where these two companies are doing "open core" - other people may step up and fill in those paid-for gaps with true, open source solutions. I also feel that part of our work is to work with these companies to get them to open-source everything - and inform them as to why it would benefit them - rather than to simply say, "You're not meeting our standards." We should always try to show people the light.
In closing - I propose that we leave these two features included in the release notes- with different wording highlighting that they are the "community editions" (or whatever their official community-edition naming is). They are compelling features, both with enough features of their own to make them useful for the majority of the User Base. They're not "teasers" with limits.
I also propose that we mark this issue as something to be resolved in the F14 cycle - namely, that we figure out what we want to do going forward with open core features, and have it written down and set in stone so that we don't have any surprises in future cycles. By "we," I don't mean marketing - just Fedora in general, BTW.
And unless anyone has any disagreements with either of those proposals
- I suggest we close this thread and get back to F13 beta and final
awesomeness :)
I made appropriate changes to the talking points and the release notes to change the name to 'Zarafa Open Source edition,' so it will be very clear that what we're shipping is a 100% FOSS codebase.
No disagreement with anything you said here, Robyn -- just wanted to note that I had made these changes so they're as transparent as the rest of the process.
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Jan Wildeboer -
Joerg Simon -
Nelson Marques -
Paul W. Frields -
Rahul Sundaram -
Robert Scheck -
Robyn Bergeron -
Yaakov Nemoy