Jason Earl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Compare the 7.3 release notes, written for the most part by Bruce
>> Momjian and revised by a couple of other developers, to the "press
>> release", written by people who were obviously ill-informed.
> So does this mean that you are volunteering to proofread the next
> marketing announcement? I would wager that only a PostgreSQL
> developer (such as yourself) could have picked out the inconsistencies
> that you were able to find.
FWIW, the press release looked fine to me too (and yes, I saw it in
advance).
> The difference between the press release and the Release Notes is the
> intended audience.
Exactly. The level of detail in the release notes is aimed at hackers
(and usually gets criticized as "insufficient" by them ;-)), but a press
release has entirely different purposes.
> In short, if you want to help the folks writing the press releases,
> then that's fine and dandy.
One error that I think the advocacy team made is that they didn't invite
review of the press release from a wider part of the community.
Although I generally agree with the viewpoint that marketing issues
should be on a separate list and not on -hackers or -general, I think it
wouldn't be out of place to send one message to those lists saying "a
draft of the press release for <event FOO> is up at <this URL>, please
send comments to <advocacy mail list>." That seems like a reasonable
compromise between filling the lists with unwanted material and having
people feel that they were excluded from the process.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
