Spins on Talking Points
chitlesh.goorah at gmail.com
Wed Mar 3 12:43:29 UTC 2010
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> Hi Marketing team,
> Chitlesh continues to feel very bereft of the ability to market the
> FEL spin through our Talking Points page. Originally the Talking
> Points were conceived as a way of marketing features, innovations, and
> changes in the Fedora Project to a general audience. Although new
> Spins arguably fit into that definition, changes to existing Spins
> might not.
What you failed to understand that neither the following fall into the
Therefore, you have not given me proper reason why FEL's ONE paragraph
should be deleted. Something, I spent time to write in order to fit
the general audience target.
> However, I'd rather *expand* that coverage than make contributors feel
> we're trying to keep their work from reaching Ambassadors, which was
> never our intent. The expanded marketing potential of the spins.fp.o
> site may not be enough to suit everyone.
> In our next meeting, could we add an item to agree that we'll include
> a single 2-3 sentence bullet point in our Spins section in the talking
> points, for any Spin that wants to add one? I would like to add these
> to the information we're already planning to include in the talking
> points about new Spins.
Dear Marketing Team,
I would like to know why should this item be even brought into a
discussion since it should be done by default (and for any spin).
Fedora Spins are Fedora, and Work done behind those spins are to
improve Fedora software portfolio and deserves to tell the world, this
and that has been done, and this and that can be expected by the
Take for example this possible question you might get at the Booth:
"Why should one promote OLPC if its hardware is not opensourced?
(forget the software for one moment)"
Most fedora ambassadors don't know how to address that question and
can't even say that FEL is working to make this happen. Another
example would be our work done to fit openmoko's development cycle.
The thing what I want to point out, is Fedora is growing and many
fedora sub-projects are popuping up and Fedora Marketing/Ambassador is
LOSING track of what these subprojects are doing. The email from Ryan
is an example :
> What would it take for
> Chitlesh to send a message to the FEL list asking if any FEL users or
> contributors are interested in helping us out? Get some FEL member behind the
> marketing effort, and we could see some really awesome things happening :)
> Having someone involved from a spin gives it that needed push to "get things
> done" (hi!) and can go a long way. Also a good way for Marketing and Fedora as
> a whole to possibly grab up some extra contributors :)
I would assume Ryan is new to Fedora Marketing. New ambassadors like
him won't know that (in the case of FEL), unless he or she has done an
intensive training on Fedora's community. I am personally writing
promotional material for FEL. Time is being allocated in our FEL
development cycle just for writing and updating promotional material.
Not to say that we are the only spin (since it's existence) who are
providing materials for Fedora Marketing. What he wrote is what we are
doing it since more than 3 years now. I'm more worried what Fedora
Ambassadors say about MicroElectronics during various events.
Those promotional material done is not propagating to other Fedora
contributors. Deleting Talking points about a spin will not help to
solve internal fedora knowledge builder, nor it will be for the
Another example is the recent Fedora Board e-mail to spin owners which
entail some questions. These questions are already answered by the
spin owners when they first presented their interest for a spin to the
Fedora community. It is sad that even Fedora Board does not know what
are at their disposal.
We are an engineering community, I would expect some common sense from everyone.
More information about the marketing