On 09/22/2014 01:52 PM, Pete Travis wrote: *Trimmed >100 lines of unnecessary text. Please do the same! > I don't like the "Fedora Base" section. It provides an implication that > there is a "Fedora Base" product, and maybe-kinda sets an expectation > that users will have some sort of package selection UI, which afaik > doesn't exist in any of the media we ship - unless you get a product > netinstall and manually append a repo argument at boot. From the announcement: Base is not a full product intended for use on its own, but to be kept as a small, stable platform for other products to build on. Is that not clear enough? > I suggest removing the " === Fedora Base === " line so the content of > that section exists as a continuation of the previous paragraph, and > perhaps omitting the paragraph about the Base WG completely. I have the > utmost respect and appreciation for their work, but describing > organizational structure and internal division of responsibility doesn't > seem right for a product release announcement. This is the alpha announcement, not final. It seems appropriate to me to mention this sort of thing in the alpha + beta announcements given the audience is much smaller and more attuned to these things. Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst jzb@xxxxxxxxxx | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- marketing mailing list marketing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
