On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Przemek Klosowski <przemek.klosowski@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > So, my TL;DR message is, think carefully what aspects are important > (technical? organizational? marketing?), what constituencies are involved in > each, what changes are desirable, how to measure their effect, and then come > up with processes to effect those changes. > I'd like to build on this a little bit. I'm concerned that we've gone straight to discussing the "how" without a clear picture of the "why". What would we want to accomplish with a change in the release schedule? mattdm said: > So, first, putting together a release is a lot of work. If we're > stepping on the toes of the previous releases, are we wasting some of > that work? > > Second, from a press/PR point of view, I think we get less total press > from having twice-a-year releases than we would from just having one > big one. When it's so frequent, it doesn't feel like news. The first point is a good question, but what if the answer is "no, we're not wasting some of that work"? For the second point, the solution could be to do a better job on the marketing side, or to focus on a few really kickass features for a given release. I'm not opposed to making changes, but I'd like to know what it is we're trying to accomplish in a semi-concrete manner. Then we can figure out the changes necessary to get there. Thanks, BC -- Ben Cotton _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
