Re: bad press in the G+ circles/press


On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 11:40, Allan Day <allanpday gmail com> wrote:
> Sriram Ramkrishna <sri ramkrishna me> wrote:
>> We've been getting a slew of psots on G+ and in the press.  Started by
>> Linus, has now caused a stampede of well known Linux kernel developers
>> feeling the need to reject Gnome 3 in public.
>> Since the press now senses red meat, I wonder if we might be ready with
>> canned messages if at the Desktop Summit we are approached to comment on
>> Linus and other's rants against Gnome 3?
> The main thing is to set out our positive story rather than to tackle
> the negativity head on. There's a standard line that goes something
> like:
> 1. GNOME 3 was a change, there were always going to be some people who
> didn't like it.
> 2. But it has been a huge success. <Insert evidence:
>  - We've been regularly contacted by people telling us how much they like it.
>  - There have been good reviews in the press.
>  - Fedora received a massive boost in popularity due to including it.
>  - We've subsequently seen other major OSs following the same design
> trajectories - FOSS leading rather than following for once.>
> 3. But we know there's more to do. 3.0 was the first step; it will get
> better and better with subsequent releases.
> The most damaging thing that's been said so far - which we need to
> counter where possible - is the suggestion that no one likes GNOME 3.
> That's a really nasty meme. A straight statement along the lines of 'X
> is entitled to his/her opinion, but it goes against the reality that
> GNOME 3.0 was hugely successful for that kind of release' is needed.

I  don't really like these canned answers.  So one says "G3 is an
unholy mess" the other one says "G3 is hugely successful". It sounds
to me like "keep talking, I don't listen".  It's like a discussion
between two death persons. It is perfectly fair to say "G3 is bad"
without any argument, it's freedom of speech. The answers of GNOME
people I could read were not fair. (We could wonder why GNOME people
are so sensitive on the subject.)

What about?
- be open
- listen to the feedback,
- don't give canned answers
- engage in constructive discussion,
- avoid derision
- show interest in feedback
- get to the facts;
- go to the source, tackle rumors; what is it founded on?
- if needed, go through a few levels of "why" to reach the point
- use numbers
- avoid vague quantities "so many", "a lot", "several", etc.
- encourage people to report more formal feedback (mailing list, buzilla, wiki)
- really, listen to the feedback

I did not see much of this in the "unholy threads" mentioned above,


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]