Talking_points and TalkingPoints.... wiki page questions

Paul W. Frields stickster at
Mon Mar 22 02:17:43 UTC 2010

On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 11:36:42PM -0700, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
> We have two wiki pages titled Talking points...
>, which is a category
> containing the SOP, template, and historical itemized Talking Points
> that are written specifically for each cycle, and also
> - which is more
> of a high-level list of talking points that Ambassadors can use which
> are more "permanent" in nature and speak more to Fedora's vision,
> community, etc. than they do to very specific improvements and
> features.
> Here are my multiple questions:
> #1) I don't have a problem with leaving these pages named as they are
> - they both are truly sets of Talking points.  Would it be helpful to
> at least link into the page the fact that - "Hey, you may be looking
> for the -other- talking points" - particularly for people who may be
> landing on these wiki pages via search?

Ah, the Marketing/TP page is actually just a wrapper around the
existing [[Overview]] page.  If it were me, I'd probably *not*
transclude the Overview page, and instead just say "Here's a category
of pages that anyone talking about Fedora should be familiar with,"
and point to [[Category:About_Fedora]], which includes the Overview,
Foundations, and Objectives pages.

> #2) This page -
> which i think is primarily used by Ambassadors, I'm not sure who else
> may use it - has not been updated since Feb. 2009.  While I think this
> page should be fairly stable - we do have a lot of things listed in
> this section,
> --- which we could probably revisit from cycle to cycle. Do we have
> anything important to add as far as "developments in free and open
> software," are the spins listed still applicable, are the derivative
> distributions still applicable?

Also part of the [[Overview]] page.  The spins listed are all still
current AFAIK.

> Additionally - should this be added as a separate line item task each
> cycle as "Something we need to double check for continuing validity,"
> and then - who should the owner be? Obviously it seems to fall under
> the "marketing" hat right now - just by looking at the URL hierarchy -
> but is this something that the Ambassadors might want to be the owner
> of instead? Or - at the bare minimum - do the Ambassadors want to be
> notified of when ANYTHING is changed here, so that word can be spread?

The [[Overview]] page is part of our fundamental policy pages and is
(somewhat) owned by the Board, but I do agree we should take a look at
this per cycle to make sure it's up to date.

Really, having the [[Marketing/TP]] page wrap an important page like
this is kind of weird and misleading, which is why I'd advocate just
linking to it instead.

Paul W. Frields                      
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717   -  -  -  -
          Where open source multiplies:

More information about the marketing mailing list