On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Adam Williamson
<awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> So, Zarafa is getting a lot of press attention:
>
>
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=6298
>
> some of it is fairly unflattering:
>
>
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3877446/Fedora-13-Beta-...
>
> I'm a bit uncomfortable with this myself; the availability of Zarafa in
> Fedora seems to be being read in ways in which we certainly didn't
> intend it (as an aspect of commercialization, as some kind of Red
> Hat-parachuted feature and hence an indication of RH's future
> directions, etc).
>
> I'm wondering if perhaps we should pull Zarafa's mention as a
'feature'
> of Fedora 13, or if not that, then certainly develop a more coherent
> story about its inclusion, what it's for, why it's in Fedora, and the
> whole 'open core' angle on it...
>
> What do people think?
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
>
http://www.happyassassin.net
>
> --
> marketing mailing list
> marketing(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
>
First, I don't think we can pull it at this point (Streisand effect and all).
Second, this (Zarafa's inclusion in Fedora) is a wonderful success
story that I think we should use the opportunity to highlight that a
community member (or two) worked to get this feature in the
distribution. Even if we have to tell that story as a correction -
it's still a powerful one, IMO.
The way some articles happen are that journalists contact us to gather
some information before an article. This was not one of those cases
unfortunately. This is also an opportunity for us to learn about how
marketing materials might be interpreted by others, and I also agree
with everything David said.
--
Paul W. Frields