F20 Alpha announcement & release notes

[Robyn Bergeron]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pete Travis" <me at petetravis.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 3:31:56 PM
> Subject: Re: F20 Alpha announcement & release notes
> 
> 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 :)

I will say though that I think that it would be okay for docs and marketing to diverge on the terminology depending on what the end written thing is; it might make more sense for something like release notes or other documentation to actually have things spelled out as changes. 
> 
> --Pete
> 
> --
> docs mailing list
> docs at lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/docs