Fedora survey results

[Paul W. Frields]

On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 12:39 -0500, Tim Burke wrote:
> I hope you all had a great holiday. Sorry for the delay, and a sincere 
> thanks to all who participated in the survey.  The results of this 
> survey are hung off the fedoraproject.org marketing page under a 
> feedback section.
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Marketing/Fedora

I would highly recommend all DocMonkeys check out the results -- at
least the summary -- listed on the URL above.  Of special concern for
us:

A.  "Improve documentation and release notes" was priority #3 on the
list of 12, right behind "Improve overall stability" and "Implement new
features."

B.  Documentation appeared on the performance list in position #11 of
11.  Yikes.  161 responses considered documentation performance as
"strong good to excellent," while 277 called it "poor."

Certainly we all know that we're hampered somewhat by a lower level of
involvement from the community than, say, Fedora Extras.  But surely we
have made and can continue to make improvements.  Let the discussion
commence!

I think this should be on our agenda for today's FDSCo meeting if
possible, so some initial responses can make it to the minutes posted
here later tonight/tomorrow.

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/attachments/20060103/da23ba6f/attachment.sig>