On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 09:27 +1100, Helen South wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Bryen M. Yunashko <susero...@bryen.com> > wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 22:25 +0100, Will Stephenson wrote: > > > Our input on naming/versioning etc should be for the end product that we > > actually market. Deciding 11.5 or 12.0 has impact in how we market the > > release, but codenaming... no it doesn't. Let the parents name their > > baby, not us. > > > > Bryen > > > > Although I have seen 'Celadon' appear in some press comments here and > there, so to some extent it is relevant. It seems some media expect a > name. > > And frankly, while I might not be writing code, I think my > contribution gives me some small degree of ownership and the right to > have a say. > > cheers, > > Helen >
You are absolutely correct, and I don't mean to imply that we, as individuals, don't have a say. My point is that such a discussion about a factorydevelopment product should happen in the appropriate mailing list. In this case, it should be on the -factory ML or arguably, on the Project ML. *IF* we even think such a discussion should occur (and some people think it shouldn't.) Besides, as marketers, we should all be on other mailing lists and not just our own. Discussions of product that have broader implications should be discussed at that product's homebase or we'll continue to have two camps diverging. Marketers should offer input on marketing impact on those lists as well. We need more interactivity, not separation. For some out there, people are saying those marketing guys are making all these decisions without consulting us. And if we persist in having such discussions as codenaming here instead of over there, we're only reinforcing that perception. Bryen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+unsubscr...@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-marketing+h...@opensuse.org
