On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 11:36:42PM -0700, Robyn Bergeron wrote: > We have two wiki pages titled Talking points... > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talking_points, which is a category > containing the SOP, template, and historical itemized Talking Points > that are written specifically for each cycle, and also > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Marketing/TalkingPoints - 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) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Marketing/TalkingPoints 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, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Marketing/TalkingPoints#Why_Is_the_Fedora_Project_Different.3F > --- 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 http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com -- marketing mailing list marketing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
