FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Marketing

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-20-2010, 07:51 PM
Mario Torre
 
Default In the news: Zarafa

Il giorno mar, 20/04/2010 alle 15.29 -0400, David Nalley ha scritto:

> First, I don't think we can pull it at this point (Streisand effect and all).
> Second, this (Zarafa's inclusion in Fedora) is a wonderful success
> story that I think we should use the opportunity to highlight that a
> community member (or two) worked to get this feature in the
> distribution. Even if we have to tell that story as a correction -
> it's still a powerful one, IMO.

I agree on that.

But I would also like to point out that the article talks about Amazon
S3 as well, which is in my opinion more worrying.

I've not used duplicity yet, but I know it implements more than Amazon
S3 support, so what the author states sounds really incorrect to me.

Cheers,
Mario
--
pgp key: http://subkeys.pgp.net/ PGP Key ID: 80F240CF
Fingerprint: BA39 9666 94EC 8B73 27FA FC7C 4086 63E3 80F2 40CF

Proud GNU Classpath developer: http://www.classpath.org/
Read About us at: http://planet.classpath.org
OpenJDK: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/caciocavallo/

Please, support open standards:
http://endsoftpatents.org/

--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-20-2010, 08:03 PM
Nelson Marques
 
Default In the news: Zarafa

On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 15:43 -0400, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
> As long as it doesn't becom Fedora investing time and ressources on
> correcting and defending openCore companies, fine with me.

I am not planning to contribute on that field. In fact I turned down a
Feature Profile suggestion the other day about Zarafa.

> I still would advice Zarafa to call the opensource version different. Makes
> all of our lives easier. But that is mid-term and up to Zarafa. Short term
> we should try to set it right where needed by commenting and talking to
> authors of articles.

I would leave that to the strategical planning people. I do share some
of your concerns specially on brand integrity and one thing that is
clear: the current name is free advertising for "open core" (whatever
that means).

We shouldn't do a press release, the ones who make Zarafa should, and
the investment on clearing this sort of thing should be from them (my
humble opinion), as they are clearly taking advantage of having a
product or at least an association mainstreamed freely through a
powerful distribution channel like Fedora.

>
> But we should focus more on the true goodies of Fedora. Zarafa is - as you
> said - only one of them.

Sure we do... and in my opinion the press has failed in getting some
cool features and nice engineering... like Mesa 7.8, ATI Driver not
being unstable, nouveau (which all are truly amazing pieces of
engineering).

PS: Personal opinion post, not to be associated with any institution I
might be connected to.


>
> Jan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: marketing-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org
> <marketing-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org>
> To: For discussions about marketing and expanding the Fedora user base
> <marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Sent: Tue Apr 20 15:01:34 2010
> Subject: Re: In the news: Zarafa
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> Am Dienstag, 20. April 2010 19:47:22 schrieb Jan Wildeboer:
> > Now I am not in the "told you so" department, but it unfolds as I
> > expected.
> > Not much we can do now without harming either Fedora or Zarafa.
>
> Harm? This sounds dramatized. Fedora is in the press with zarafa as a
> feature
> - and we disussed pro and contra already a lot.
>
> It is easy to oppose and disagree on new contributions - i know that it is
> part of your job at Red Hat to be a "pain" to non-FOSS Vendors - but
> Fedora
> is about enable and encourage people to contribute and i want to see that
> Press, Users, - the world - get the right message - i already explained in
> detail why it is good that a community driven feature should advertised [1]
>
> Clarification and truth have nothing to do with harming - it is about
> enlighten
> them and evangelize them to spread it right. We talk about FOSS Software
> here
> and it seems Paul clarified things already to the author.
>
> cu Joerg
>
> [1]
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/marketing/2010-April/012472.html
>
> --
> Joerg (kital) Simon
> jsimon@fedoraproject.org
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JoergSimon
> http://kitall.blogspot.com
> Key Fingerprint:
> 3691 0989 2DCA 58A2 8D1F 2CAC C823 558E 5B5B 5688


--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-20-2010, 08:37 PM
Robyn Bergeron
 
Default In the news: Zarafa

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 09:04:28AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> So, Zarafa is getting a lot of press attention:
>>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=6298
>>
>> some of it is fairly unflattering:
>>
>> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3877446/Fedora-13-Beta-The-Seen-and-Troubling-Unseen.htm
>>
>> I'm a bit uncomfortable with this myself; the availability of Zarafa in
>> Fedora seems to be being read in ways in which we certainly didn't
>> intend it (as an aspect of commercialization, as some kind of Red
>> Hat-parachuted feature and hence an indication of RH's future
>> directions, etc).
>>
>> I'm wondering if perhaps we should pull Zarafa's mention as a 'feature'
>> of Fedora 13, or if not that, then certainly develop a more coherent
>> story about its inclusion, what it's for, why it's in Fedora, and the
>> whole 'open core' angle on it...
>>
>> What do people think?
>
> As some others noted, I think pulling the feature is unwarranted. *At
> least part of the compelling story around Zarafa is that it's included
> because a volunteer took advantage of our open, community process to
> get a cool piece of software into the distribution. *This happens
> quite a lot, and deja-dup is another good example. *But that story
> wasn't clear in the talking point, so I've corrected it for future
> reporters who only read the talking point.
>
> Comparing Deja-Dup and Zarafa in Fedora to something like Ubuntu's
> Ubuntu One music store is comparing apples to oranges. *The Fedora
> Project has no commercial agreements with these companies and receives
> no money for them. *They're provided because volunteers decided they
> brought worthwhile solutions to users with 100% FOSS.

What I find troubling about the article is that he's not - as we did,
on the mailing list when discussing the Zarafa feature - talking about
the "open-core" thing. He's basically talking about being troubled
because Fedora is becoming "commercialized."

This is akin to arguing with someone about whether or not a Wal-Mart
should go into their neighborhood. Some people are for it - "new jobs!
lower cost goods!"; some will be against it - "They'll put all the
locals out of business!" Other people will just argue against it
because.... hating Walmart is anti-establishment, and being
anti-establishment is cool. In this case - no commercialization is
"cool" - and he doesn't provide any significant underlying reasons
why, other than he believes that open source should be a refuge from
commercialization.

The fact is - more and more companies are producing open source
products. Personally, I could care less if a product going into
Fedora is created by aliens from another planet, provided that the
product itself - or in this case, the version/edition of the product -
is adhering to Fedora's core values, has appropriate licensing, and so
forth. We should not put ourselves in the practice of excluding
features that would be valuable and useful to our user base - not to
mention, products that had significant community effort, and are
appropriately free and licensed - simply because
$CompanyThatMakesMoney(orAtLeastSpendsMoney) put effort into it.

I think we made the right call - and I don't think we should backtrack.

>
> Also, I've dropped a comment at the article site, pushed a change to
> the BFO FAQ indicating clearly that BFO is not part of Anaconda
> itself. *That was the only location I could find that looked
> potentially unclear.
>
>
>
> --
> 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
>
--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-20-2010, 09:00 PM
John Poelstra
 
Default In the news: Zarafa

Adam Williamson said the following on 04/20/2010 09:04 AM Pacific Time:
> So, Zarafa is getting a lot of press attention:
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=6298
>
> some of it is fairly unflattering:
>
> http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3877446/Fedora-13-Beta-The-Seen-and-Troubling-Unseen.htm
>
> I'm a bit uncomfortable with this myself; the availability of Zarafa in
> Fedora seems to be being read in ways in which we certainly didn't
> intend it (as an aspect of commercialization, as some kind of Red
> Hat-parachuted feature and hence an indication of RH's future
> directions, etc).
>
> I'm wondering if perhaps we should pull Zarafa's mention as a 'feature'
> of Fedora 13, or if not that, then certainly develop a more coherent
> story about its inclusion, what it's for, why it's in Fedora, and the
> whole 'open core' angle on it...
>
> What do people think?

Disagree. Our feature process does not require a "coherent story for
inclusion."

This feature was added to Fedora through a purely community process by a
non-Red Hat person (someone correct me if I'm wrong). There was no
"driving force of Red Hat" behind it that I'm aware of and it should
remain on the list.

This is not the first time the press has created alternate reality out
of our feature list. In Fedora 12 the news stories were all about
Moblin (exceptioned in by FESCo after feature freeze, just like Zarafa,
by another non-Red Hatter) and how this was Red Hat's attempt to
"compete head to head with Windows 7 in the netbook space." Considering
that the owner doesn't work for Red Hat that would have been a little
difficult

To me these stories show that we might need to do a better job
explaining how our releases processes work and that *anyone* (regardless
of employer) can submit a feature for inclusion in a Fedora release.

John

John
--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-20-2010, 09:30 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default In the news: Zarafa

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 03:29:00PM -0400, David Nalley wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
> > So, Zarafa is getting a lot of press attention:
> >
> > http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=6298
> >
> > some of it is fairly unflattering:
> >
> > http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3877446/Fedora-13-Beta-The-Seen-and-Troubling-Unseen.htm
> >
> > I'm a bit uncomfortable with this myself; the availability of Zarafa in
> > Fedora seems to be being read in ways in which we certainly didn't
> > intend it (as an aspect of commercialization, as some kind of Red
> > Hat-parachuted feature and hence an indication of RH's future
> > directions, etc).
> >
> > I'm wondering if perhaps we should pull Zarafa's mention as a 'feature'
> > of Fedora 13, or if not that, then certainly develop a more coherent
> > story about its inclusion, what it's for, why it's in Fedora, and the
> > whole 'open core' angle on it...
> >
> > What do people think?
> > --
> > Adam Williamson
> > Fedora QA Community Monkey
> > IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
> > http://www.happyassassin.net
> >
> > --
> > marketing mailing list
> > marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
> >
>
> First, I don't think we can pull it at this point (Streisand effect and all).
> Second, this (Zarafa's inclusion in Fedora) is a wonderful success
> story that I think we should use the opportunity to highlight that a
> community member (or two) worked to get this feature in the
> distribution. Even if we have to tell that story as a correction -
> it's still a powerful one, IMO.

The way some articles happen are that journalists contact us to gather
some information before an article. This was not one of those cases
unfortunately. This is also an opportunity for us to learn about how
marketing materials might be interpreted by others, and I also agree
with everything David said.

--
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-20-2010, 09:32 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default In the news: Zarafa

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 02:00:56PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
> Adam Williamson said the following on 04/20/2010 09:04 AM Pacific Time:
> > So, Zarafa is getting a lot of press attention:
> >
> > http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=6298
> >
> > some of it is fairly unflattering:
> >
> > http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3877446/Fedora-13-Beta-The-Seen-and-Troubling-Unseen.htm
> >
> > I'm a bit uncomfortable with this myself; the availability of Zarafa in
> > Fedora seems to be being read in ways in which we certainly didn't
> > intend it (as an aspect of commercialization, as some kind of Red
> > Hat-parachuted feature and hence an indication of RH's future
> > directions, etc).
> >
> > I'm wondering if perhaps we should pull Zarafa's mention as a 'feature'
> > of Fedora 13, or if not that, then certainly develop a more coherent
> > story about its inclusion, what it's for, why it's in Fedora, and the
> > whole 'open core' angle on it...
> >
> > What do people think?
>
> Disagree. Our feature process does not require a "coherent story for
> inclusion."
>
> This feature was added to Fedora through a purely community process by a
> non-Red Hat person (someone correct me if I'm wrong). There was no
> "driving force of Red Hat" behind it that I'm aware of and it should
> remain on the list.
>
> This is not the first time the press has created alternate reality out
> of our feature list. In Fedora 12 the news stories were all about
> Moblin (exceptioned in by FESCo after feature freeze, just like Zarafa,
> by another non-Red Hatter) and how this was Red Hat's attempt to
> "compete head to head with Windows 7 in the netbook space." Considering
> that the owner doesn't work for Red Hat that would have been a little
> difficult
>
> To me these stories show that we might need to do a better job
> explaining how our releases processes work and that *anyone* (regardless
> of employer) can submit a feature for inclusion in a Fedora release.
>
> John

John just provided a great idea for a feature profile for
post-release: profiling how features themselves happen. Is there
currently a list of proposals where we can add that?

--
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-20-2010, 09:50 PM
Robyn Bergeron
 
Default In the news: Zarafa

[[Marketing_brain_dump]] - if you could add it to the new ideas
section, so I can add it and migrate it accordingly into the plan,
that would be excellent.

On 4/20/10, Paul W. Frields <stickster@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 02:00:56PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
>> Adam Williamson said the following on 04/20/2010 09:04 AM Pacific Time:
>> > So, Zarafa is getting a lot of press attention:
>> >
>> > http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=6298
>> >
>> > some of it is fairly unflattering:
>> >
>> > http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3877446/Fedora-13-Beta-The-Seen-and-Troubling-Unseen.htm
>> >
>> > I'm a bit uncomfortable with this myself; the availability of Zarafa in
>> > Fedora seems to be being read in ways in which we certainly didn't
>> > intend it (as an aspect of commercialization, as some kind of Red
>> > Hat-parachuted feature and hence an indication of RH's future
>> > directions, etc).
>> >
>> > I'm wondering if perhaps we should pull Zarafa's mention as a 'feature'
>> > of Fedora 13, or if not that, then certainly develop a more coherent
>> > story about its inclusion, what it's for, why it's in Fedora, and the
>> > whole 'open core' angle on it...
>> >
>> > What do people think?
>>
>> Disagree. Our feature process does not require a "coherent story for
>> inclusion."
>>
>> This feature was added to Fedora through a purely community process by a
>> non-Red Hat person (someone correct me if I'm wrong). There was no
>> "driving force of Red Hat" behind it that I'm aware of and it should
>> remain on the list.
>>
>> This is not the first time the press has created alternate reality out
>> of our feature list. In Fedora 12 the news stories were all about
>> Moblin (exceptioned in by FESCo after feature freeze, just like Zarafa,
>> by another non-Red Hatter) and how this was Red Hat's attempt to
>> "compete head to head with Windows 7 in the netbook space." Considering
>> that the owner doesn't work for Red Hat that would have been a little
>> difficult
>>
>> To me these stories show that we might need to do a better job
>> explaining how our releases processes work and that *anyone* (regardless
>> of employer) can submit a feature for inclusion in a Fedora release.
>>
>> John
>
> John just provided a great idea for a feature profile for
> post-release: profiling how features themselves happen. Is there
> currently a list of proposals where we can add that?
>
> --
> 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
>

--
Sent from my mobile device
--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-20-2010, 09:54 PM
Robyn Bergeron
 
Default In the news: Zarafa

I'd like to add that this would be a great piece for a press kit as well

On 4/20/10, Paul W. Frields <stickster@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 02:00:56PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
>> Adam Williamson said the following on 04/20/2010 09:04 AM Pacific Time:
>> > So, Zarafa is getting a lot of press attention:
>> >
>> > http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=6298
>> >
>> > some of it is fairly unflattering:
>> >
>> > http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3877446/Fedora-13-Beta-The-Seen-and-Troubling-Unseen.htm
>> >
>> > I'm a bit uncomfortable with this myself; the availability of Zarafa in
>> > Fedora seems to be being read in ways in which we certainly didn't
>> > intend it (as an aspect of commercialization, as some kind of Red
>> > Hat-parachuted feature and hence an indication of RH's future
>> > directions, etc).
>> >
>> > I'm wondering if perhaps we should pull Zarafa's mention as a 'feature'
>> > of Fedora 13, or if not that, then certainly develop a more coherent
>> > story about its inclusion, what it's for, why it's in Fedora, and the
>> > whole 'open core' angle on it...
>> >
>> > What do people think?
>>
>> Disagree. Our feature process does not require a "coherent story for
>> inclusion."
>>
>> This feature was added to Fedora through a purely community process by a
>> non-Red Hat person (someone correct me if I'm wrong). There was no
>> "driving force of Red Hat" behind it that I'm aware of and it should
>> remain on the list.
>>
>> This is not the first time the press has created alternate reality out
>> of our feature list. In Fedora 12 the news stories were all about
>> Moblin (exceptioned in by FESCo after feature freeze, just like Zarafa,
>> by another non-Red Hatter) and how this was Red Hat's attempt to
>> "compete head to head with Windows 7 in the netbook space." Considering
>> that the owner doesn't work for Red Hat that would have been a little
>> difficult
>>
>> To me these stories show that we might need to do a better job
>> explaining how our releases processes work and that *anyone* (regardless
>> of employer) can submit a feature for inclusion in a Fedora release.
>>
>> John
>
> John just provided a great idea for a feature profile for
> post-release: profiling how features themselves happen. Is there
> currently a list of proposals where we can add that?
>
> --
> 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
>

--
Sent from my mobile device
--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-20-2010, 11:02 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default In the news: Zarafa

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 02:54:24PM -0700, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
> I'd like to add that this would be a great piece for a press kit as well

Added!
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_brain_dump&diff=167992&o ldid=165559

--
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 
Old 04-21-2010, 04:19 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default In the news: Zarafa

On 04/21/2010 01:11 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>
> As some others noted, I think pulling the feature is unwarranted. At
> least part of the compelling story around Zarafa is that it's included
> because a volunteer took advantage of our open, community process to
> get a cool piece of software into the distribution. This happens
> quite a lot, and deja-dup is another good example.
>

FYI, I bought deja-dup into the distribution and asked the Fedora
Desktop team to include it. The primary (and really the only) upstream
developer, Michael Terry works for Canonical. Duplicity has supported
Amazon S3 as a backup option forever and the developer was merely
exposing that in the GUI. There is no commercial agreement anywhere in
this equation. We simply filled in a gap in our desktop solution.

Rahul

--
marketing mailing list
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:44 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org