Re: FOP description [was: P*r*s* R*l*a*e]

[Simon Pepping <sp...@leverkruid.eu>]

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 09:03:53PM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Simon,
> thanks for helping out but that's exactly what Sally didn't want:
> talking about this in the open especially with the "press release" in
> the subject. Please keep this on private@ for now.

Sorry for that. I put the short description of FOP to public
discussion, and I believe that that is the right way to discuss how we
wish to describe ourselves to the world.
 
> To anyone press-related listening in: this is WORK IN PROGRESS and not
> ready to be published!!! We'll make a public announcement when the
> release is ready.
> 
> On 13.07.2010 19:32:18 Simon Pepping wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 04:04:23PM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > > BTW, I've contacted Sally Khudairi (VP, Marketing and Publicity) to talk
> > > about creating a press release that puts the 1.0 release in the right
> > > light. It's a critical release press-wise, so I'd like to get this right.
> > > Not that some people expect too much. Too bad OpenSSL beat us to the 1.0
> > > release by about 3 months. ;-)
> > 
> > I propose some modifications of your short description. You wrote:

Simon

-- 
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu

Re: FOP description [was: P*r*s* R*l*a*e]

[Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch>]

On 14.07.2010 10:24:08 Simon Pepping wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 09:03:53PM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > Simon,
> > thanks for helping out but that's exactly what Sally didn't want:
> > talking about this in the open especially with the "press release" in
> > the subject. Please keep this on private@ for now.
> 
> Sorry for that. I put the short description of FOP to public
> discussion, and I believe that that is the right way to discuss how we
> wish to describe ourselves to the world.

That's the usual way, yes. Discussing a project description in public is
not bad, but please not with the "press release" in the subject. The
actual press release should be developed on private@ so we only publish
the final version on public lists.

It's just that some Apache projects have been misrepresented in the news
possibly because someone didn't have/gather the right information bits.
I wouldn't like to see bad press on FOP because we didn't make it very
clear what people can expect from the 1.0 release and why we made a 1.0
now.

I've already found a note on the net where someone says that 1.0 has
been released which is not the case.

<snip/>



Jeremias Maerki