On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> Alternately, "Feature" could be the term for the
any small or big thing
>> which is useful to track and tout for marketing purposes, and big
>> technical
>> changes could be, I dunno... "Major Changes".
>
> The meeting minutes showed that Fedora Marketing is already filtering
> the current Feature list and picking the important ones to highlight, so
> I don't think continuing to call the small ones Features is accurate.
>
> I mean, sure it could be done but it seems to make more sense to change
> the name of the small ones instead. Or just have them go to release
> notes. The main point is, calling them all the same thing is confusing
> and leads to a basically useless "Feature list".
>
Feature is something somebody considers important enough to create feature
page for it. Period.
We're going to disagree on this point. It's OK that we disagree.
I am not sure why do you want to categorize it by size and impact,
when it
will be autocategorized by feedback on ML. The only think matters is that
the Feature is widely advertised and that the community can provide early
feedback. Please avoid bureaucracy. I would realy hate to see something like
FFCo (Fedora Feature Committee), which would decided if feature is feature,
major change, alteration, evolution or disruption, since it really doesn't
matter.
It doesn't matter from a "get this thing into Fedora" standpoint. It
very much matters from a marketing/communication standpoint. If it
didn't matter, Fedora Marketing wouldn't be picking specific items out
of the overall Feature list.
The example I used in the meeting (which btw you should really go read
the full logs at this point because all I'm doing is repeating myself)
is that if you give a tech journalist a list of 10 Features, they can
write a pretty decent article about what is coming in the next Fedora
release. If you give them a list of 20-30 Features, they're either
going to ignore you entirely or pick 10 Features they think are worth
writing about.
Some Features are more important than others. I want FESCo involved
in reviwing the ones that are big, have an impact across the distro,
are somewhat controversial, and have the potential to require a lot of
coordination. Whatever we call those, that is what I want reviewed.
josh