----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joe Brockmeier" <jzb@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "For participants of the Documentation Project" <docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Fedora Marketing team" <marketing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > 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@xxxxxxxxxx | http://community.redhat.com/ > Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/ > -- > docs mailing list > docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/docs -- marketing mailing list marketing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
