21:12:47 <mchua> #startmeeting
21:12:47 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Feb  9 21:12:47 2010 UTC.  The chair is mchua. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:12:49 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
21:12:50 <mchua> Talking points conversation here.
21:12:56 <mchua> #chair stickster rbergeron
21:12:57 <zodbot> Current chairs: mchua rbergeron stickster
21:13:03 <mchua> (I'll chair whoever wants to be chaired, btw)
21:13:31 <stickster> mchua: Should I repost my starting definition?
21:13:46 <mchua> stickster: if you could, that'd be great.
21:13:47 <stickster> #info Talking points are essentially a distillation of technical innovations that are part of the feature process.  Those innovations appear in the Feature List.  Some of those innovations are obviously desktop related.  But many come from other areas that are important to large groups of users like system administrators and developers.
21:13:58 <mchua> #link g definition?
21:14:05 * mchua grimaces at paste fail
21:14:17 <mchua> #link http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ambassadors/2010-January/013347.html
21:14:26 <stickster> Note that this doesn't mean the talking points are just for Desktop spin. For example, some of the developer-centric features aren't in the Desktop spin.
21:14:34 <stickster> e.g. SystemTap, NetBeans.
21:14:36 <mchua> #info that's the email where Paul tried to clear up a bit of a misunderstanding.
21:14:48 * rbergeron is back!
21:14:57 <mchua> hey, rbergeron. Perfect timing.
21:15:14 <stickster> However, the talking points also can't expand infinitely, or else they simply become (1) a repetition of the feature list, and (2) impossible to cover in terms of feature profiles.
21:16:03 <mchua> stickster: d'oh, I have reading fail today - my brain clicked into "desktop desktop!" mode when it's broader than that. *fixes*
21:16:09 <mchua> anyhoo.
21:16:12 <stickster> As a person on the Marketing team I'd look at any suggested Talking Point, and ask, can I relate this to lay press in a sentence or so?
21:16:22 <stickster> Is it impactful for a large audience of people?
21:16:37 * stickster hates the word "impactful" and just used it because he couldn't think of another at the moment :-)
21:16:38 <quaid> tip: 3 to 5 points per area, preferably 3
21:16:44 <stickster> quaid: Right on.
21:16:59 <quaid> area = for end-users (desktop); sysadmins; power users; developers
21:17:09 <quaid> and can add designers; etc. as we get more of that stuff.
21:17:13 <mchua> quaid: how were those areas chosen?
21:17:16 <stickster> The Moblin point is an interesting one this time because we have an official spin for it now -- afaik that is new.
21:17:16 <rbergeron> so what other groups do we reach out to to decide this?
21:17:19 <quaid> mchua: experience :)
21:17:31 <quaid> "gut"
21:17:39 <stickster> quaid: I would combine sysadmins + power users because the skills are highly coincident.
21:17:45 <rbergeron> stickster: and i think moblin is also somethign that gets a god deal of press attention, as well.
21:17:47 <rbergeron> err. good.
21:17:57 <quaid> rbergeron: good slip, tho'
21:17:58 <rbergeron> "they said moblin! omg"
21:18:10 * stickster wonders if there is a call to simply move new spins to a new spin talking point
21:18:18 <quaid> +1
21:18:20 <stickster> "Fresh this release: Moblin! SoaS!"
21:18:27 <rbergeron> oh.
21:18:30 <mchua> Well, my thinking was to make it possible for spins (and subgroups in general) to make their own talking points.
21:18:31 <rbergeron> CLLLOOOOOUUUUUUUD
21:18:34 <mchua> by making that SOP and such.
21:18:38 <quaid> just as we also tend to have "new contributor-focused stuff"
21:18:47 <quaid> thus could add that area
21:18:48 * rbergeron notes that that word gets people running :)
21:18:56 <mchua> rbergeron: yes, but in what direction? ;)
21:19:03 <stickster> rbergeron: Until Cloud has something to show, I'd rather leave that off. I'm very hopeful but it's too early to tell.
21:19:09 * rbergeron nods
21:19:16 * stickster notes this is all just his opinion.
21:19:43 <rbergeron> part of the problem for me is that i'm somewhat disconnected from "what's important going on in devel"
21:19:52 <stickster> I think the "new spins this release" item makes it clear that we do care about spins, and in that item we can point to spins.fedoraproject.org as a routine.
21:20:05 <stickster> rbergeron: I'm a bit more connected, but not as much as... a developer :-)
21:20:14 <rbergeron> so i think that ... as a new marketing person it is important to clear up the process by which "what is important" gets distilled to ... the marketing group.
21:20:16 <mchua> Most of what I'm trying to figure out here - the SOP will let anyone make their own talking points, the same way spins lets people make their own... well, spin. (Or remix) - but what in talking points is it Marketing's responsibility to make sure gets done, and what do we provide resources for others to pick up on as they wish?
21:20:25 <mchua> That's the line I'm trying to figure out how to draw when writing the SOP.
21:20:28 <rbergeron> without necessarily having to follow every meeting and every mail.
21:20:33 <mchua> rbergeron: +1
21:20:43 <rbergeron> and without ticking people off :)
21:20:46 <stickster> mchua: Can you define "Make their own talking points"?
21:20:57 <stickster> Is the purpose to allow downstream remixers to know how we do it in Fedora?
21:21:08 <rbergeron> i don't want to be ignorant, so I read what is going on over there, but things that are groundbreaking may just slip by me because I'm not a developer.
21:22:20 <rbergeron> mchua is trying to teach the spin people how to market their own goodness :)
21:22:27 <rbergeron> with the SOPs!
21:22:37 <stickster> mchua: OK, cool
21:22:42 <mchua> stickster: Yes - basically, I made a thing! (say "Mel's Spin") and go "hey, I have done cool things that aren't in the talking points... I want to have a Mel's Spin Talking Points. Hey, if I follow these instructions, I have made them!"
21:22:49 <stickster> I just wanted to differentiate that from "Create a bunch of talking points and add them to the F13 list"
21:22:53 * mchua nods
21:23:13 <stickster> #agreed Spin owners can use the SOP to create talking points for publication on their spin pages
21:23:45 <rbergeron> what about just general project / group owners?
21:24:02 <rbergeron> or do they kind of pitch in on wiki / whatever with proposals?
21:24:20 <stickster> rbergeron: Sure, anyone can use it -- but Marketing should be focused on the F13 deliverable, and anyone else is free to reuse our process elsewhere
21:24:35 <mchua> It sounds like we really have 3 audiences here.
21:24:49 <mchua> (1) you're in charge of making talking points happen for a Fedora release.
21:25:03 <mchua> (2) you want to contribute to the talking points for a fedora release.
21:25:04 <mchua> and
21:25:13 <mchua> (3) you want to make talking points happen for something that is *not* a fedora release.
21:25:41 <mchua> (though #3 is mostly "look at #1 but s/fedora release/whatever you are interested in.")
21:25:56 <mchua> though drawing that differentiating line - even if it's just a sentence or two - is important.
21:26:03 <quaid> btw, a bonus usage of talking points is ...
21:26:12 <quaid> if they are written so as to be translateable
21:26:23 <quaid> this allows for localized press release-type materials
21:26:33 <quaid> i.e., a translation/Ambassador group takes the talking points in English
21:26:43 <quaid> translates them to Cartusian
21:26:52 <quaid> and writes a culturally appropriate wrapper around them
21:27:12 <quaid> so in US English we have a whimsical announcement
21:27:22 <quaid> that may not be culturally appropriate or make sense when translated
21:27:28 <quaid> so people can write their own this way.
21:27:36 * quaid made senses?
21:28:01 * mchua nods.
21:28:02 <stickster> +1, the talking points are there to provide structure to any locale's release promotion
21:28:26 <stickster> mchua: OK, so what are you looking for next here?
21:28:30 * rbergeron nods
21:29:01 <mchua> How accurate would it be to say the scope of Marketing's responsibilities for the release talking points == 3-5 talking points for each category /in {user/dev/sysadmin-or-poweruser}?
21:29:25 <mchua> and anything else - additional points for those groups, other groups, etc - are things we provide a SOP so Other People can make 'em?
21:29:32 * quaid +1
21:29:51 <mchua> stickster: because if that's what it is, then I think we're set to at least write a first round SOP explaining that and starting convo/feedback based on that.
21:29:55 <quaid> + a responsibility to produce one announcement based on those talking points written in US English?
21:30:37 <mchua> quaid: aye, I would consider talking points "done" only when they've been publicised somewhere.
21:30:38 <stickster> mchua: I think that's exactly right. The scope of the SOP is pretty simple, it's the way we decided on specific points.
21:30:59 <stickster> quaid: That responsibility is shared with Docs IIRC.
21:31:06 <quaid> it has been :)
21:31:12 <quaid> but it could be all-Marketing
21:31:17 <stickster> True
21:31:41 <quaid> who has input on the formal-set of talking points?
21:31:54 * quaid avoids terms such as blessed, certified, and official
21:32:01 <rbergeron> that's what i want to get to!
21:32:20 <rbergeron> is there a meeting? a wiki? a long, arduous email thread?
21:32:25 <mchua> quaid: should be everyone, really - part of the responsibility of making release notes happen is soliciting input.
21:32:36 <mchua> rbergeron: Do you remember how we chose the release slogan for f12?
21:32:37 <quaid> uh, so we vote?
21:32:42 * quaid shudders
21:32:49 <stickster> That is definitely the Wrong Answer.
21:32:52 <stickster> (voting)
21:32:54 <rbergeron> mchua: yes, but release slogan is like....
21:32:56 * mchua twitches re: voting
21:33:06 <rbergeron> i think less feeling-involved :)
21:33:22 <rbergeron> everyone feels that what they've worked on is -really important-
21:33:25 <rbergeron> which of course, it is
21:33:43 <stickster> I think we can solicit input for additions to the talking points, and set the expectation up front that the Marketing team and the FPL have the responsibility of whittling talking points down to a specific quantity
21:33:50 <stickster> i.e. 3-4 per category
21:34:18 <quaid> input from ... sub-projects, SIGs, FESCo, ...
21:34:32 <stickster> I would say that FESCo is probably the best place to go.
21:34:49 <stickster> It's a community elected body and therefore should be representative.
21:34:58 <stickster> Plus it's full of the technical folks.
21:35:00 <mchua> rbergeron: is the question "who ultimately has the decisionmaking power to say XYZ are talking points?"
21:35:10 <rbergeron> i think it's more
21:35:24 <rbergeron> "how can we make sure we're being transparent and inclusive without it being a freakin disaster"
21:35:25 <rbergeron> :)
21:35:54 <stickster> I think the best way for us to go about it is to make a first cut at the TPs.
21:36:22 <stickster> The first cut should include a link to the process of what's going to happen as they're finalized.
21:36:32 <stickster> s/link/prominent link/
21:36:39 <rbergeron> and send out an email with a box of tomatoes as an attachment :)
21:36:49 <rbergeron> and blog blog blog.
21:36:57 <stickster> Then we can invite comment without it being disastrous. Most disasters start with uncertain expectations.
21:37:09 * rbergeron nods
21:37:30 <stickster> We indicate a deadline for comment, and then we proceed. The Marketing team decides on the final TPs and the FPL basically has a veto power that shouldn't need to be used.
21:37:42 <stickster> (i.e., as with lots of stuff)
21:37:47 * rbergeron nods
21:37:53 <stickster> mchua: Comments?
21:37:58 <mchua> That sounds exactly right to me.
21:38:05 <stickster> quaid: ?
21:38:06 <mchua> Or at least it takes care of all my questions. :)
21:38:24 <rbergeron> mchua: so can we compare this with the timeline?
21:38:33 * rbergeron fishing up poelcat marketing schedule
21:38:53 <mchua> rbergeron: http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-13/f-13-marketing-tasks.html
21:38:56 <mchua> #link http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-13/f-13-marketing-tasks.html
21:38:59 * rbergeron gots it :)
21:39:31 <rbergeron> Sonar_Gal: tuesday, 2/16 we sprint in mktg meeting.
21:39:43 <rbergeron> crap. SORRY!!
21:39:47 * rbergeron coughs
21:39:48 <rbergeron> anyway
21:39:51 * quaid reads
21:40:04 <rbergeron> we sprint on a list in mktg meeting.
21:40:18 <quaid> sounds right
21:40:20 <rbergeron> follow up with email to appropriate lists for feedback.
21:40:23 <quaid> I like that Marketing has final call, wtc.
21:40:47 <rbergeron> and wait tilll..... Monday morning to say, this is final?
21:40:50 <rbergeron> Monday morning 2/22?
21:40:58 <rbergeron> or any interim steps in there?
21:41:04 * mchua looking at schedule...
21:41:09 <rbergeron> Monday morning we take into account any feedback?
21:41:12 <rbergeron> or Friday?
21:41:33 <rbergeron> I just think we should have a clear-cut time period
21:41:35 <rbergeron> that we can tell people
21:41:45 <stickster> rbergeron: And I think the appropriate lists are marketing@ and devel@.
21:41:48 <rbergeron> "we're taking input from here till there, and this is that."
21:42:06 <rbergeron> er, and this will be final on this date.
21:42:09 <mchua> Yeah, we need to schedule a Monday meeting time to wrap everything up.
21:42:32 <mchua> It's a shorter timescale than I'd like, honestly. And closer to the date than I'd like. But. Such are the constraints we work within.
21:43:01 <rbergeron> we could have a separate meeting earlier than next week. Maybe friday, or monday.
21:43:13 <rbergeron> Tuesday mktg-meeting loses us a day.
21:43:31 <mchua> rbergeron: what would we use the tuesday sprint time for, then? (or just a normal meeting?)
21:43:33 <rbergeron> We could sprint / brainstorm at some point, and have a more finalized list for Tuesday mktg meeting.
21:44:08 <rbergeron> I think we could sprint on it in the meeting, if we have all the materials for people to familiarize themselves with 'what's important, what's not'
21:44:18 <rbergeron> even if it's an on-list brainstorm discussion
21:44:27 <rbergeron> althoguh, that invites the trouble we're trying to avoid :)
21:44:37 <rbergeron> i just think it might be difficult to pack into an hour
21:44:40 <rbergeron> without some prep
21:44:44 <rbergeron> maybe i'm wrong :)
21:44:54 <rbergeron> we can just go go go until we're done, alternately
21:44:58 * rbergeron isn't sure how long this took in the past
21:45:05 * mchua either, tbh
21:45:08 <mchua> stickster, quaid ^^
21:45:20 * mchua has to run in about 10m, but will be back in ~2h
21:45:21 <rbergeron> or if it just magically appeared :)
21:45:53 <mchua> rbergeron: I think the thing to do is - tonight, we should finish the first round SOP, which should contain those date-milestone-type-things you've just been mentioning.
21:46:05 * rbergeron nods
21:46:08 <mchua> and publish that as "here is the plan we currently intend to follow, feedback/patches welcome."
21:46:15 * rbergeron agrees
21:46:26 * rbergeron sends mchua caffeine for this evening!
21:46:32 <mchua> we also set a meeting time on - either Friday or Monday, we should pick one tonight..
21:46:46 <stickster> mchua: I agree with the plan, and I think the sprint on the TPs themselves probably isn't as useful as just slogging through it onlist.
21:46:46 <mchua> at which we'll (1) freeze a snapshot of the SOP, taking into account any feedback/patches we've gotten
21:46:47 <rbergeron> action those so we don't forget :)
21:47:19 * rbergeron doesn't think she's a chair, but if she is then she'd do it herself
21:47:23 <stickster> mchua: Did I read and respond to that correctly?
21:47:27 <mchua> #action tonight, we should finish the first round SOP, which should contain those date-milestone-type-things you've just been mentioning, and publish that as "here is the plan we currently intend to follow, feedback/patches welcome."
21:48:05 <mchua> stickster: oh - we were wondering "how many hours of work / how much effort does it usually take to make talking points go from 0 to done?"
21:48:13 <mchua> stickster: because my guess is that it should be "not much at all"
21:48:19 <stickster> mchua: I'd say not a lot
21:48:26 <rbergeron> mchua: is Monday an office holiday?
21:48:42 * rbergeron is just wondering how much traction we'd get if we did anything monday in terms of participation
21:48:43 <mchua> #action set a meeting time for Fri/Mon (pick one) to (1) freeze a snapshot of the SOP, taking into account any feedback, and (2) prepopulate with sample content and announce.
21:48:49 * mchua wonders what a "holiday" is
21:48:54 <stickster> Maybe 1-3 hours if you had to do it all via IRC discussion. Wiki and email tend to work OK.
21:49:03 * rbergeron notes it is one of those days when you work without getting paid, sort of?
21:49:16 <stickster> mchua: I'm having a hard enough time remembering "weekend"
21:49:22 <stickster> :-)
21:49:26 <rbergeron> weekends are for shoveling!
21:49:29 <mchua> rbergeron: Ohhhh! Those! Yeah!
21:49:58 <mchua> rbergeron: I think that if we get through those two things tonight, we should be in good shape - and know what we'll be doing for the rest of the f13 cycle, or close enough to proceed.
21:49:58 * stickster notes that there are currently TPs preseeded which are not a bad start
21:49:58 <stickster> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Talking_Points
21:50:00 <rbergeron> and holidays are for catching up on email while slightly less is pouring in :)
21:50:02 * mchua nods.
21:50:22 * stickster will leave some HTML comments in the page to be helpful
21:51:03 <rbergeron> ahhhhhh.
21:51:26 * mchua thinks we're pretty good here... rbergeron, anything else you can think of?
21:51:35 <rbergeron> not really.
21:51:39 <mchua> Okeydokey.
21:51:49 * stickster is good
21:51:51 <mchua> I think we're good, then. I'll be back in a few hours to tinker with SOPs.
21:51:52 * rbergeron is a willing SOP test-bed
21:51:55 <mchua> w00t.
21:52:02 <rbergeron> "does it work?
21:52:03 <rbergeron> "
21:52:06 <rbergeron> "WILL IT BLEND????"
21:52:08 <mchua> "does it blend?"
21:52:10 <mchua> jinx!
21:52:12 <rbergeron> hah!
21:52:20 <mchua> thanks, stickster and quaid, for thy words of wisdom and experience.
21:52:35 <mchua> (helpful stuff, that "experience" thing. ;)
21:52:38 <mchua> All right, wrapping up.
21:52:44 <mchua> I'll send these notes to list as well.
21:52:50 <mchua> Thanks, everyone.
21:52:52 <mchua> #endmeeting