[commops] working on f23 final release announcement

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:22:47PM -0400, Remy DeCausemaker wrote:
> I'm new here, so bear with me, but Fedora has been really been making
> the "Friends" foundation a focus of the latest release, by improving
> our infrastructure and community. I realize this is not necessarily
> the distro itself, but there are a few activities that come to mind:
> 
>  - We deployed Bodhi2 (5 years in the making, huge performance increases, fine-grained karma, and more...)
>  - D&I - Advisor search ongoing, and we've approved funding to hire two Outreachy interns, helping with Hubs/dev portal & Community Operations (CommOps)
>  - Fedora Hubs has already had a successful intern (mrichards) pave the way for future interns and contributors.
>  - Fedora-bootstrap is our latest project wide CSS and website theme, providing cohesion to our web properties.
>  - Fedmenu is a glimpse into the widgetized future that comes with embeddable widgets via Fedora Hubs
>  - http://whatcanidoforfedora.org is like the Fedora Sorting Hat :)
>  - Fedora Magazine has hit milestone readership and publications (actual numbers TBD)
>  - Others that I am not thinking of at the moment
> 
> I know this list above includes things that we have shipped along
> with things we have not yet shipped, but we've made mentionable
> progress on a number of fronts. I dunno if these 'Community'
> improvements are part of a release announcement or not, but they are
> def worth mentioning somewhere (particularly the strides that have
> been made in front-end, and in Rel-eng.)

Nice angle — I really like this. I had suggested (or, maybe I glommed
onto someone else's suggestion beacause I like the idea — I forget —
anyway, it was suggested) that Fedora development might benefit from a
"tick-tock" cycle, with one release focusing on process improvements,
and the next release focusing on OS features. People weren't, overall,
comfortable with putting Fedora into that model, I think mostly because
feature changes sometimes come faster than that, but also irregularly.
In any case, though I think this is clearly a "tick" release, with more
process and infrastructure improvements than big change within the
actual distribution.

On a similar note, at FUDCon Lawrence a few years ago, Tim Burke
suggested a "red/yellow/green" model for labeling how much scary change
a release contains. (As an alternative to having major/minor releases.)
I'm not a big fan of that, because I think we're mostly at the point
where even our scary releases are actually very solid and are "green"
in the absolute sense. But from that point of view, this is a "green"
release too. With our current marketing / press  model, which relies on
splashy changes to generate talking points, this ironically means the
releases we'd like _most_ to get into the hands of users get less
attention.

So anyway, that's a long way of saying that, yeah, I like the general
idea. I'm not sure a list of technical infrastructure improvements will
play any better with the press than a list of software version bumps,
though. Open to ideas. :)



> Is there a standard template for asking the WG's and Subprojects for
> their bulletpoints? Do we even need to do that, or do we just take
> the beta notes, and then fancy them up a bit at this point?

Beta notes make a good starting point, but I'd say fancy them up _a
lot_. :)

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader