On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:22:47PM -0400, Remy DeCausemaker wrote: > I'm new here, so bear with me, but Fedora has been really been making > the "Friends" foundation a focus of the latest release, by improving > our infrastructure and community. I realize this is not necessarily > the distro itself, but there are a few activities that come to mind: > > - We deployed Bodhi2 (5 years in the making, huge performance increases, fine-grained karma, and more...) > - D&I - Advisor search ongoing, and we've approved funding to hire two Outreachy interns, helping with Hubs/dev portal & Community Operations (CommOps) > - Fedora Hubs has already had a successful intern (mrichards) pave the way for future interns and contributors. > - Fedora-bootstrap is our latest project wide CSS and website theme, providing cohesion to our web properties. > - Fedmenu is a glimpse into the widgetized future that comes with embeddable widgets via Fedora Hubs > - http://whatcanidoforfedora.org is like the Fedora Sorting Hat :) > - Fedora Magazine has hit milestone readership and publications (actual numbers TBD) > - Others that I am not thinking of at the moment > > I know this list above includes things that we have shipped along > with things we have not yet shipped, but we've made mentionable > progress on a number of fronts. I dunno if these 'Community' > improvements are part of a release announcement or not, but they are > def worth mentioning somewhere (particularly the strides that have > been made in front-end, and in Rel-eng.) Nice angle — I really like this. I had suggested (or, maybe I glommed onto someone else's suggestion beacause I like the idea — I forget — anyway, it was suggested) that Fedora development might benefit from a "tick-tock" cycle, with one release focusing on process improvements, and the next release focusing on OS features. People weren't, overall, comfortable with putting Fedora into that model, I think mostly because feature changes sometimes come faster than that, but also irregularly. In any case, though I think this is clearly a "tick" release, with more process and infrastructure improvements than big change within the actual distribution. On a similar note, at FUDCon Lawrence a few years ago, Tim Burke suggested a "red/yellow/green" model for labeling how much scary change a release contains. (As an alternative to having major/minor releases.) I'm not a big fan of that, because I think we're mostly at the point where even our scary releases are actually very solid and are "green" in the absolute sense. But from that point of view, this is a "green" release too. With our current marketing / press model, which relies on splashy changes to generate talking points, this ironically means the releases we'd like _most_ to get into the hands of users get less attention. So anyway, that's a long way of saying that, yeah, I like the general idea. I'm not sure a list of technical infrastructure improvements will play any better with the press than a list of software version bumps, though. Open to ideas. :) > Is there a standard template for asking the WG's and Subprojects for > their bulletpoints? Do we even need to do that, or do we just take > the beta notes, and then fancy them up a bit at this point? Beta notes make a good starting point, but I'd say fancy them up _a lot_. :) -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader -- marketing mailing list marketing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx List info or to change your subscription: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
