Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
- From: Dave Neary <bolsh gnome org>
- To: Dave Neary <bolsh gnome org>, Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org>, GNOME Marketing List <marketing-list gnome org>, GNOME release team <release-team gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Issuing a press release about GNOME 3
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:20:02 +0200
First reactions, on a quick read:
Please don't put the technical justification "API & ABI break" front &
center. Users don't care, and it will be a handicap the next time we
want to bump major versions, even without an API break. Along the same
lines, I'd remove the API/ABI FAQ.
Better to be honest, and say "GNOME evolves, and it's important to
signal every couple of years that we have important new features. GNOME
2.30 will not be the same as GNOME 2.22, and GNOME 2.22 is nothing like
GNOME 2.0" - GNOME version numbers don't matter to developers - GTK+
version numbers *might*, but they're a different kettle of fish.
Version numbers matter to users, and to the press.
Again a communication issue, but I'd invert "Focus on the platform", and
make it "Be an inclusive gathering place for application developers".
"Focus on the platform" sounds like "remove focus from applications" -
not the message you want to send.
I'd put front & center: "GNOME 3 is an evolution of GNOME 2.28, and will
not be a complete rewrite of large chunks of platform or applications".
Reassure people that we're not doing a GNOME 2/KDE 4.
I'd also remove some of the "Critical factors" - specifically "Libraries
should be rewritten..." is scary. Re-write as "GNOME 2.x and GNOME 3.x
libraries should be parallel installable". Remove the glib example
altogether, it's just confusing.
I'd also put more emphasis on what I considered the really interesting
part of the proposal - planned major version number jumps every 2-3
years, with a major feature arc planned for this period, withing the
framework of the 6 monthly releases.
It also sounds like you're thinking of completely doing away with the
Desktop, Admin and Developer release sets... is that the case? If it's
not, then you might want to reword the "what will I need to do to be a
GNOME project?" bits.
Vincent Untz wrote:
> Le mardi 15 juillet 2008, à 16:36 +0200, Dave Neary a écrit :
>> Vincent Untz wrote:
>>> Le lundi 14 juillet 2008, à 13:00 +0200, Olav Vitters a écrit :
>>>> Rough document is at: http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3. I want to add loads
>>>> more stuff. The document is currently only readable by r-t members.
>>> I changed a few things here and there. I think we need some more work,
>>> though, because it's still a bit rough around the edges. Are there some
>>> people in the marketing team willing to help build the document? We'll
>>> add you to the acl so you can edit it.
>> Please add me.
> I've done it a few minutes ago :-)
>>> We might also want to start keeping track of the press articles talking
>>> about all this so we can know how people understand all this and adapt
>>> our communication. For example, I was quite pleased to read
>> I don't want to recommend commercial software or anything, but
>> del.icio.us is the bee's knees for this kind of thing. Just be
>> consistent in your tags (say "gnome3 article") and you can find all the
>> articles you tag later.
> People who will do the stuff will choose how to do it. I know I won't be
> doing it and I have nothing better to propose than a wiki, which I agree
> is not really suitable, so...
GNOME Foundation member
bolsh gnome org
] [Thread Prev