Re: draft GNOME 2.10 press release

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 15:52 +0000, G�m �tin wrote:
> Murray Cumming wrote:
> 
> >This is a draft of our press release for GNOME 2.10, for marketing-list
> >to comment on. This is absolutely definitely not for release yet, so I
> >don't want to see links to it all over the web. The attachment is an
> >OpenOffice document.
> >
> >I'm not a PR person, so I'm prepared for all kinds of constructive
> >criticism.
> >
> >At the moment, I'm thinking of removing the bug-fix count because I
> >think it's not a meaningful thing to most people, and will do more harm
> >than good.
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> Hi
> 
> Here are my 2c ideas. (All are constructive! ;-))
> 
> 1. Second and third paragraphs should be devoted to GNOME feature sets,
> rather than quotes from GNOME people. Editors tend to read the first few
> paragraph and the very last (if there's a note to editor part).

I'm not sure. I guess that journalists like quotes.

> 2. How many languages does GNOME support? This information should
> be merged into the PR, IMHO. Languages show an international taste
> of effort.

We do mention internationalization at the start, but I guess we could
say that that means translation.

> 3. Which is the name of the product? GNOME or GNOME Desktop and
> Developer Platform? The distinction between those two should be mentioned
> somewhere.

GNOME produces the GNOME Desktop and Developer Platform. I'm not sure
how to make that more explicit without being really dull. I'm not sure
how much space we have to use.

> 4. Are there any trademarks other than Solaris? I believe that HP-UX, Unix,
> BSD, Darwin trademarks should be referred as necessary.

Yeah. I don't know what's normal. I've seen press releases that mention
the trademarks for the big interesting stuff and just say "all other
trademarks yadda yadda yadda"

> 5. "The GNOME architects have worked hard for the past six months,
> "so you don't have to, fixing over 1200 reported bugs." is a complex 
> sentence
> for some of the editors, IMHO. I had to read this sentence twice to ensure
> whether I fully understood the real meaning, or not.

Yes, I needed somewhere to add the bug-fix count, and it doesn't really
work.

> 6. www.gnome.org is listed twice, so one of them should belong to
> GNOME Foundation, which can be directed to foundation.gnome.org

I think we should keep it simple.

> 7. "The software includes the GNOME 2.10 desktop interface, file manager,
> menus and utilities, as well as the complete set of development tools
> and libraries". Can we omit "menus" here? It looks strange (to me).

But it does give people some idea of what a "desktop" is.

-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com