[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Someone's missing the point...it's us.

On 8/10/05, Greg DeKoenigsberg <gdk redhat com> wrote:
> This is not a matter of our failure to define Fedora properly to the
> community.  

I disagree.  The nebulous fog of an idea's worth of a vague notion
that comprises the first paragraph on fedora.redhat.com is an inherent
failure.  Like it or not, it's the first Google'd hit on "fedora," and
it doesn't do Fedora justice.

We have also failed to define what Fedora is *not*.  The community is
looking at Fedora and seeing a pot of code, not a server, not a
desktop, not any of the things we might like them to see.  Are they
seeing what they want to see?  Hell yeah, because we're not telling
them what *we* want then to see.  Our roadmap is equally nebulous.
LiveCD? One-CD install? DVD? Put that in the roadmap.

Since I know Greg's response will be something like, "So what *you*
think we should do Mr. Frye?," here are some suggestions:

1) Stop spending time on decisions that we don't get to make, e.g..
logos  - it's just an example, but there will be more like it.
2) Build a plan that's actionable, i.e. one that Red Hat's real
marketing team will allow us to execute.  Ultimately, any real chances
that we want to take must be approved.  Red Hat 2005 isn't the Red Hat
of 1998, and we don't have real autonomy.
3) Market with information, not just hats and t-shirts.  Make it cds,
books, dvds, etc.  Organize speakers for LUGs.  Be one.  That's what
they really need!

That's just for starters.  

> Beyond that, I don't know that there's much to say.  The only way forward
> with Fedora is to build the community of developers, and increase the
> quality of the offering over time.  That's all.

How about challenging the "Fedora sucks" guy to a debate?  Sometimes
that's all it takes (see Martin Luther), but shouldn't just ignore it.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]