cloudstack-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robyn Bergeron <rberg...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Elevator Pitch / Top N Features
Date Tue, 05 Mar 2013 17:56:55 GMT


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Brockmeier" <jzb@zonker.net>
> To: cloudstack-marketing@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 10:33:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Elevator Pitch / Top N Features
> 
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Musayev, Ilya wrote:
> > I see your point, on the other hand, if you mention what is true,
> > you
> > don't overstate or beat your competitor, I don't believe we should
> > have
> > an issue.
> > 
> > We are only mentioning the facts. In addition, many of us are not
> > affiliated with Citrix, though we are affiliated with the project
> > this is
> > still community lead effort.
> 
> Not sure what a Citrix affiliation would have to do with Apache
> CloudStack. ;-)
> 
> Being community led doesn't make a difference, IMHO, from the vantage
> of
> a Wikipedia "editor" who is looking at contributions coming in with
> an
> eye for bias/gaming the page.
>  
> > I don't believe we should just let Wikipedia page stay outdated and
> > wait
> > for someone else to do it - as it may never happen - or happen with
> > considerable amount of delay (I.e. we are on version 4.1 and
> > article
> > mentions 3.x). Lots of things have changed since then and the
> > person who
> > updates the wiki may not have enough expertise to write about
> > something
> > he does not know about.
> 
> Totally agree with this. If the wikipedia article says "current
> release
> is 3.x" then I think we're empowered to change that.
> 
> For instance, looking at the page I noticed the stable release info
> was
> outdated - so I edited that. Purely factual, I can't imagine anyone
> can
> complain about that edit.
> 
> On the other hand, coordinating on the list to discuss how to
> *promote*
> ACS via Wikipedia may well be viewed unfavorably.
> 
> > If we stay ethically correct, state only facts, don't down play on
> > competitors and this comes from the community, my humble opinion,
> > we
> > should be ok.
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> 
> See above - but "comes from the community" won't necessarily be
> viewed
> as a "defense" if it looks like we're editing the page impartially.
> 
> I think we should take an active interest in making sure the page is
> accurate and current, and any community member can do that. I start
> to
> worry when it comes to talking about using promotional text from our
> Web
> site on Wikipedia. That would probably be viewed unfavorably.

Perhaps it would be useful to have a release-day marketing task list, where a few kind volunteers
can take care of various updates that need to be done - including perhaps updating the current
basics of release information on wikipedia?

I think there's a subtle difference between "promotional text" and "just the basics" - when
it comes to things like feature descriptions, I think there's certainly room for various interpretations
that all have their own benefits, thought obviously it's a matter of who's willing to do the
work, let alone do it in multiple ways :)  The "just the facts" vs. "SHINY AND COMPELLING
things you MUST HAVE!" marketing version is one way to look at it - wikipedia would obviously
benefit more from "just the facts."

In the past, in Fedora (sorry, the only example I have) we've done Talking Points, which were
intended for the purposes of letting the good people who help promote Fedora have a concise,
human-readable (ie: not amazingly-detailed engineering-heavy) version of highlighted release
features. Note that there are extended details, as well as a bulletpoint-type "bottom line"
description, the latter being something that might be more easily extended to drop into wikipedia
(IMO). 

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_14_talking_points

-robyn

> 
> Best,
> 
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier
> jzb@zonker.net
> Twitter: @jzb
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
> 

Mime
View raw message