F20 Alpha announcement & release notes

[Pete Travis]

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Robyn Bergeron <rbergero at redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joe Brockmeier" <jzb at redhat.com>
> > To: "For participants of the Documentation Project" <
> docs at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> > Cc: "Fedora Marketing team" <marketing at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 12:45:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: F20 Alpha announcement & release notes
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:46:33AM -0600, Pete Travis wrote:
> > > If we are discussing Changes, we should call them Changes. The word
> > > "feature" is natural in this context, but carries with it the
> connotation
> > > of the now-defunct Features process.  I have a similar tendency to use
> the
> > > word "runlevel" for example, and make a conscious effort to use
> "target" as
> > > the correct term.
> >
> > How many of the folks in the audience have any awareness of the
> > distinction between "features" and "changes" in this context? I want to
> > make sure we're not getting bogged down with inside baseball.
> >
> > > The Changes process in and of itself is a notable organizational
> > > accomplishment.  I see no value in obscuring our process for the sake
> of
> > > using the familiar and overloaded "feature." Let the readers find it
> > > strange if need be; it is a new thing, and this is the way of all new
> > > things.
> >
> > I think it's better for the minority of Fedorans who are actively
> > involved to have to cope with less specific language in general
> > communications than to "let the readers find it strange."
> >
> > Not sure that the difference between changes/features is enough to
> > really throw readers, but in general communications I think we should
> > always bow to the larger audience.
>
> I would also argue that if I was to see a list of "changes" - some of
> which are perhaps less buzzworthy than others (not for lack of
> interestingness, technical awesomeness, etc. but simply because some things
> catch more eyes than others) - I would almost expect that a list of changes
> would be in its entirety, as you might find it in more detailed release
> notes or documentation. Whereas "features" implies .. things that we are
> featuring. Highlighting. Not a complete list.
>
> I also think that it (Features) works in terms of consistency - when we
> get to the point that we are doing Feature stories, they're not going to be
> "change" stories - it is a story about a specifical technological
> advancement in Fedora that we are featuring, showing off in greater depth,
> etc.
>
> Honestly, I think the fine line here is that "changes" may be things that
> are system-wide changes, per the change set list; whereas oftentimes
> "self-contained changes" are more likely to be features we might highlight
> in a more in-depth fashion. There aren't any hard rules about what we pick
> and choose, or what buckets they need to fall into, or about what we might
> call them; it is our job, in marketing, to produce materials that inform
> and attract audience to download and try out an alpha, beta, or final
> release. I just happen to think that calling them "Features" or
> "Highlights" insinuates more about "the cool things you will find," where
> "changes" seems to imply a greater depth than we would be covering in a
> release announcement.
>
>
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > jzb
> > --
> > Joe Brockmeier | Open Source and Standards, Red Hat
> > jzb at redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
> > Twitter: @jzb  | http://dissociatedpress.net/
> > --
>

Fair points, all. I rescind my objection to the term, and thank you for the
lesson :)

--Pete
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/docs/attachments/20130923/8d8f274e/attachment.html>