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. Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier | Open Source and Standards, Red Hat jzb@xxxxxxxxxx | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/ -- marketing mailing list marketing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
