14:00:03 <jwf> #startmeeting Fedora Marketing meeting (2017-02-28)
14:00:03 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Feb 28 14:00:03 2017 UTC.  The chair is jwf. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:03 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
14:00:03 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_marketing_meeting_(2017-02-28)'
14:00:09 <jwf> #meetingname marketing
14:00:09 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'marketing'
14:00:13 <jwf> #topic Agenda
14:00:17 <jwf> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Marketing_meeting_2017-02-28
14:00:22 <jwf> #info (1) Roll call
14:00:25 <jwf> #info (2) Announcements
14:00:29 <jwf> #info (3) Action items from last meeting
14:00:33 <jwf> #info (4) Tickets
14:00:36 * FranciscoD sits in a corner to observe :)
14:00:37 <jwf> #info (5) Upcoming tasks
14:00:41 <jwf> #info (6) Open floor
14:00:45 <jwf> #topic Roll call
14:00:49 <jwf> #info Name; Timezone; Other sub-projects / interest areas
14:01:08 <jwf> #info Justin W. Flory; UTC+1; CommOps, Marketing, Magazine, Ambassadors, Diversity Team, sysadmin-badges, and more…
14:01:11 * jwf waves to FranciscoD
14:01:13 <x3mboy> #info Eduard Lucena; UTC-4; Magazine, Ambassador, Join, Hubs, Workstation
14:01:20 <jwf> #chair x3mboy
14:01:20 <zodbot> Current chairs: jwf x3mboy
14:01:25 <x3mboy> FranciscoD, o/
14:01:29 <FranciscoD> #info Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD): UTC; Join, Packaging (and wherever else I can help out)
14:01:33 <FranciscoD> heya jwf x3mboy !
14:01:38 <jwf> #chair FranciscoD
14:01:38 <zodbot> Current chairs: FranciscoD jwf x3mboy
14:02:10 <jwf> We'll wait a couple more minutes to see who all else is around.
14:03:12 <jwf> bkp sent his regards earlier in channel that he would be running a little late due to some morning errands.
14:05:10 <jwf> Okay, let's go ahead and get started.
14:05:11 <x3mboy> The good about this time is that I'm at work, so both connection and availability is high for me
14:05:16 <jwf> #topic Announcements
14:05:38 <jwf> x3mboy: Glad we're able to easily steal some of your time then ;)
14:05:39 <jwf> #info === In the news: "Fedora Linux Distro to No Longer Offer Alpha Builds Starting with Fedora 27" ===
14:05:44 <jwf> #link http://news.softpedia.com/news/fedora-linux-distro-to-no-longer-offer-alpha-builds-starting-with-fedora-27-513252.shtml
14:05:49 <jwf> #info While it's not true that this is finalized, there is a current change proposal to drop Alpha releases from the release cycles of Fedora starting in Fedora 27. You can read more information at the Change wiki page.
14:05:54 <jwf> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NoMoreAlpha
14:06:12 <dhanesh95> .hello dhanesh95
14:06:13 <zodbot> dhanesh95: dhanesh95 'Dhanesh Bhalchandra Sabane' <dhanesh95@disroot.org>
14:06:20 <jwf> As far as I could read, it wasn't actually finalized, which the headline of the article contradicts the verb usage they use at the bottom of the article
14:06:22 * jwf waves
14:06:24 <jwf> #chair dhanesh95
14:06:25 <zodbot> Current chairs: FranciscoD dhanesh95 jwf x3mboy
14:06:29 <jwf> #info === In the news: "Fedora 26 Linux Has Been Delayed by a Week, Should Now Land on June 13, 2017" ===
14:06:32 * dhanesh95 waves back
14:06:35 <jwf> #link http://linux.softpedia.com/blog/fedora-26-linux-has-been-delayed-by-a-week-should-now-land-on-june-13-2017-513250.shtml
14:06:41 <jwf> #info Normal coverage about the week delay from no/no-go discussions. Article doesn't take strong stance. New release date on 2017-06-13.
14:06:43 <jwf> <eof>
14:06:56 <jwf> This was all I could dig up for announcements. Anyone else have anything they'd like to share?
14:07:10 <dhanesh95> nothing here
14:07:15 <x3mboy> I read those, and if I'm not wrong I sent an email with those
14:07:24 <jwf> Can be anything cool you've seen or heard of elsewhere that is worth mentioning here, doesn't just have to be news sites. :)
14:07:42 <x3mboy> We need to keep the eyes on news about Fedora outside our network
14:07:48 * jwf nods
14:08:14 <jwf> I thought about the idea of mailing something to clarify that it wasn't finalized, but I wanted to see when the vote for this was and if it seemed likely it would pass before doing that
14:08:20 <jwf> Anywho, we can revisit that.
14:08:26 <FranciscoD> the new paste server is worth mentioning
14:08:36 <jwf> FranciscoD: Ah, yeah, actually!
14:08:36 <FranciscoD> (especially since there are a few kinks that infra is still working on)
14:08:51 * jwf digs for the article
14:09:06 <jwf> #info === "Hello, Modern Paste!" ===
14:09:26 <jwf> #link https://fedoramagazine.org/hello-modern-paste/
14:10:00 <jwf> #info Fedora Infrastructure officially migrated our old pastebin service to a more modern and clean paste site. You can read more info in the article on the Fedora Magazine.
14:10:02 <jwf> FranciscoD++
14:10:13 <FranciscoD> and on the announce ML, I see the "layered image release", and the new "test instances for packag maintainers" which was just announced last evening - more developer oriented, both of these
14:10:28 <x3mboy> Is there a reason to check Fedora-based distros?
14:10:41 <FranciscoD> I haven't caught up with layers and docker myself, so I don't know the significance of the layered release announcement myself :/
14:11:01 <jwf> FranciscoD: Will have to try to learn more about some of these things – I'm not sure either, but maybe we will see if it's relevant for the upcoming F26 release?
14:11:15 <jwf> We can maybe do some more research, can discuss with the talking point ticket :)
14:11:23 <jwf> If no other announcements, we'll go ahead and move on…
14:11:30 <x3mboy> Agreed
14:11:34 <FranciscoD> jwf: yea - the layered release probably would be something worth marketing in the future
14:11:35 <jwf> #topic Action items from last meetings
14:11:40 <jwf> #link https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/marketing/marketing.2017-02-21-13.59.html
14:11:53 <jwf> #info How This Works: We look at past #action items from the last meeting for quick follow-up. If a task is completed, we move on to the next one. If it isn't, we get an update and re-action it if needed. If no status, we'll try to get a quick update and move forward.
14:12:02 <jwf> #info === [COMPLETE] jwf Start mailing list thread about using a git forge for maintaining and creating a press kit for our release cycle activities ===
14:12:07 <jwf> #link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/LWFDXEVAM6F4PUJNRIA3263ICAOF35KG/
14:12:17 <jwf> Admittedly much later than I wanted to send that… apologies.
14:12:24 <jwf> That was the only action from last week's meeting.
14:12:29 <jwf> #topic Tickets
14:12:35 <jwf> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-marketing/issues?tags=meeting
14:12:40 <jwf> #info === Ticket #242: "Update release activity steps / process on the wiki" ===
14:12:44 <jwf> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-marketing/issue/242
14:12:50 <jwf> #info Left off with discussion about git forge and what should be included in the press kit. Can make a quick decision on where we want to host this, then focus more on the content that we wanted to put in there and how we want to start building it.
14:12:56 <jwf> #link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/LWFDXEVAM6F4PUJNRIA3263ICAOF35KG/
14:13:36 <x3mboy> +1 Pagure
14:13:57 <jwf> Most of my concerns with regards to git forge platform are outlined in that thread… I would be curious to know what your thoughts are on this. Also, I'd like to try to flesh out some of the "what is a press kit?" points so we can have an idea of steps to build and create those deliverables.
14:14:34 <jwf> x3mboy: Ahh, you think so? I wasn't sure because of some of the things like a web editor for written content
14:14:52 <jwf> I wanted to make sure we were being aware of the needs of people who may want to contribute to Marketing, present or future
14:15:22 <FranciscoD> you can edit files over the pagure front end, but I do recall a discussion where the design team didnt want to use git because it would increase the tech skills required to contribute to designing
14:15:27 <jwf> And I thought command-line git could be a challenge for people who may actually have a lot to contribute to Marketing
14:15:30 <FranciscoD> (or maybe it was mktg?)
14:15:36 <FranciscoD> jwf: yeh ++
14:16:20 <jwf> Oh, my mind has just been blown
14:16:28 <jwf> Pagure *does* have a web editor now
14:16:40 <jwf> I don't know how I missed this…
14:16:41 <pingou> (for a while :))
14:16:46 <jwf> pingou++
14:16:47 <FranciscoD> but you'll still need to stick to markdown jwf
14:17:00 <bkp> .hello bproffitt
14:17:01 <zodbot> bkp: Sorry, but you don't exist
14:17:02 <x3mboy> Maybe, but we can create a push script. I mean, people are not going to edit files in the CLI, just edit in the cloned git repo, and execute an script that push their changes up to pagure
14:17:06 <bkp> .hello bproffit
14:17:07 <zodbot> bkp: bproffit 'Brian Proffitt' <bkp@redhat.com>
14:17:35 <jwf> FranciscoD: I figured most of the content that we would be generating in this repo would be markdown, with the idea that we could always convert it to something else with pandoc.
14:17:36 <dhanesh95> #chair bkp
14:17:36 <zodbot> Current chairs: FranciscoD bkp dhanesh95 jwf x3mboy
14:17:38 * jwf waves to bkp
14:17:41 <jwf> dhanesh95: Thanks ;)
14:17:43 <FranciscoD> x3mboy: that may or may not work - if things conflict, you do have to deal with manually
14:17:46 <bkp> Yo!
14:18:12 <FranciscoD> jwf: if we can stick to something plaintext (markdown or rst), then git via pagure is quite an excellent choice
14:18:31 <FranciscoD> there's a wealth of tools that convert these to html/pdf/whatever
14:18:50 <jwf> bkp: To get you up to speed, we're discussing #242 (https://pagure.io/fedora-marketing/issue/242) with regards to (1) where to host the content, and (2) then fleshing out some of the content ideas we had for the press kit.
14:19:15 <jwf> FranciscoD: Honestly, now that I know Pagure has a web editor and that I've just been living under a rock, I see no reason why not to use Pagure.
14:19:27 <bkp> jwf: Ack
14:19:47 <FranciscoD> ++
14:19:50 <jwf> I think if something complex comes up with git, there will be folks experienced enough to help
14:19:51 <x3mboy> This will depends on content in the repo. We are going to host only plain text for the Press Kit? Or maybe some PDF/ODS/ODT/HTML/SVG/PNG?
14:19:58 <jwf> And that wouldn't be unique to any git forge
14:20:40 <FranciscoD> question - can you create *new* files, or can you just edit existing files?
14:20:41 <jwf> x3mboy: Looking at the suggestions we have for the press kits in the ticket, I feel like a good base to use is Markdown, and we can be more specific with something later if we convert it over
14:20:51 * FranciscoD goes to checkout pagure
14:20:53 <bkp> x3mboy: My vote would be for markdown or a markup language that can be easily imported into a document publisher too and formatted.
14:21:14 <jwf> I feel like Markdown as a default is easy enough for a newcomer or an experienced person to use, and then we have flexibility with a tool like Pandoc to convert it to just about anything we want.
14:21:25 <FranciscoD> jwf: I'm not sure if one can create new files - I see the edit button crop up when you look at a specific file
14:21:42 <dhanesh95> FranciscoD: Creating a new file is not possible
14:21:43 <jwf> FranciscoD: I wonder if pingou could clarify if the web editor allows the creation of new files?
14:21:53 * FranciscoD was just going to ping him :)
14:21:58 <x3mboy> So, if it will be md, so stick to git in Pagure is my vote
14:22:28 <FranciscoD> pingou: is creating a new file possible on pagure, or is it on the cards (should we file a feature request?) :)
14:22:29 <jwf> If not, I'm still inclined to think that most of our **files** will likely already be created, and if we're focusing on something to work on collaboratively, the doc will likely already exist in the repo (also enabling someone who wants to use the web editor to do so).
14:22:55 <FranciscoD> jwf: it could be worked around by designing an appropriate workflow, sure
14:23:02 <jwf> FranciscoD: My thoughts too.
14:23:09 <jwf> Hmm, so maybe we should take a quick vote on this… let me try writing something up.
14:23:24 <FranciscoD> for instance, at a meeting: person A to set up files B, C, D - and person X, Y to update B, C, D - and so on
14:23:43 <jwf> #proposed Marketing team will host press kit in Pagure (which *does* have a web editor!), which will also fit into our existing workflow with other repos we have on Pagure
14:23:44 <jwf> +1
14:23:48 <FranciscoD> +1
14:23:56 <pingou> jwf: would have to check
14:23:58 <x3mboy> +1
14:24:06 <bkp> +1
14:24:14 <jwf> (maybe with a modification to that proposal that the "default" file format is markdown)
14:24:15 * FranciscoD had once created a fedora foldable flyer in LaTeX :D
14:24:22 <FranciscoD> people were not happy XD
14:24:24 * jwf will just add that in unless anyone strongly objects
14:24:29 <dhanesh95> !
14:24:37 <jwf> dhanesh95: What's up?
14:24:52 <dhanesh95> Before we pass this proposal
14:24:58 <dhanesh95> Why not wiki?
14:26:00 <jwf> dhanesh95: I feel like we'll strongly benefit from version control for these things and having a hierarchical way of viewing it. I see the wiki as large and sprawling, and a Pagure repo is like a narrowed down, focused place where we can store and organize content in a way that makes sense and can easily be navigated by the team now, but also in the future.
14:26:02 <x3mboy> dhanesh95, IMHO it is hard to people to write wiki. I have 2 or 3 years writing wikis, and I'm still not good at it
14:26:06 <bkp> dhanesh95: Because wikis offer no version control
14:26:15 <FranciscoD> I think the lack of a ticketing system is a major limitation of the wiki for me
14:26:25 <bkp> dhanesh95: And documentation sprawl is a major problem.
14:26:38 <FranciscoD> (wikis do have version control in a sense - you can store the complete document history, and use categories and all that)
14:26:43 <jwf> For example, there are things in the wiki that none of us might be able to find unless you are a person who helped write that – but by having it in a repo, we have a way of finding things easily even if they're very old, and then possibly reusing those resources to be benefit us in the future as well.
14:26:49 <x3mboy> Pagure has wiki, I'm supossing that version controlled wiki...
14:27:00 <bkp> x3mboy: Hopefully
14:27:04 <dhanesh95> Pagure at the moment is the best option we have, agreed. But I'm not sure how many people will be comfortable working with it.
14:27:14 <FranciscoD> x3mboy: if it's like github, it's just stuff in a certain branch with md documentation
14:27:52 <x3mboy> Probably, I wasn't test this yet, I just see that exist.
14:27:55 <jwf> dhanesh95: I understand that concern especially because of the type of work we're doing, but I think we can try to simplify this by spending time documenting our workflow and making it easy for someone to contribute. I think this is something we can solve by explaining how to contribute well.
14:28:01 <FranciscoD> (and you can link up to generate stuff over readthedocs etc)
14:28:22 <FranciscoD> jwf: we will almost certainly have a git101 classroom session once the IRC sessions take off
14:28:30 <FranciscoD> could do that every few months to teach newbies
14:28:33 <dhanesh95> I was thinking maybe this can help https://taiga.io/
14:28:42 <dhanesh95> Has anyone heard of it?
14:28:43 <jwf> The web editor was the thing I really wanted, and I think if we maybe include screenshots or a how-to doc, I think we can successfully navigate this concern and make it easy for someone without a technical background to have a role in marketing.
14:28:57 * jwf has heard of it, but never tried it
14:29:00 <jwf> It's like Trello, right?
14:29:12 <dhanesh95> jwf: On the similar lines, yes
14:29:15 <FranciscoD> looks like it
14:29:22 <x3mboy> dhanesh95, taiga is like a kanban manager, no?
14:29:28 <dhanesh95> x3mboy: Yes
14:29:35 <bkp> Yes, like Trello
14:29:49 <dhanesh95> We can set up our own instance by requesting infra..
14:29:54 <jwf> dhanesh95: I feel like it's a great tool, but one that might not align for our needs since we're dealing heavily with written content that technically does "expire" after a certain point, but may still have significant worth in the future
14:30:07 <FranciscoD> dhanesh95: that requires packaging it up - someone will have to do that bit
14:30:27 <FranciscoD> integration with FAS is something else that will have to be looked into
14:30:29 <dhanesh95> FranciscoD: We can request infra to spin up an instance for us
14:30:33 <jwf> Leaning more heavily on "written content", which is why I feel like a kanban board type of tool may not be the best tool to use.
14:30:38 * dhanesh95 nods
14:30:50 * FranciscoD is always slightly conservative when it comes to deploying a new tool
14:30:57 <jwf> FranciscoD: Yeah, Infra has hosted instances they can spin up easily. :) Admittedly, I haven't ever tried it before though.
14:31:03 <bkp> I think Taga is too much overhead.
14:31:10 <dhanesh95> Alright then.. +1 to the proposed item
14:31:14 * jwf nods
14:31:17 * Rhea lurks
14:31:21 <bkp> A repo-based/ticket system will be fine.
14:31:28 <jwf> dhanesh95: I hope this clarified our thinking behind it.
14:31:29 <jwf> #agreed Marketing team will host press kit in Pagure (which *does* have a web editor!) and use Markdown as default markup language, which will also fit into our existing workflow with other repos we have on Pagure
14:31:29 <FranciscoD> I mean, you've gotta be really sure you really need a new tool before you think of deploying it
14:31:44 <dhanesh95> jwf: It certainly did
14:31:45 <jwf> Okay, with that out of the way, I'd definitely like to look at the actual press kit itself now
14:31:57 <jwf> Here's the five things we suggested for inclusion last meeting:
14:32:05 * jwf waves to Rhea :)
14:32:48 <jwf> #info What's in a press kit? We suggested: one-page release notes, background modules (general Fedora info), feature modules (specific to releases), past press coverage, targeted brochures / flyers
14:33:25 <jwf> I think these are awesome ideas, but now, I think it would be helpful for us to figure out what each of these looks like, and see if we can actually try to generate some of that content for this coming release.
14:33:42 <jwf> So starting general *now*, then getting more specific to this release a little later on
14:34:26 <jwf> As far as the release notes go, I think this is pretty much something we've always been doing in our release announcements… or is this something different that we need to clarify?
14:35:22 <dhanesh95> I think it's the same thing.
14:35:40 <dhanesh95> What else can "release-notes" mean?
14:35:40 <jwf> So, my question is, do we consider past release announcements on the Magazine / by the FPL as our release notes? And if yes, would we want to try create something alongside this specific to our Ambassadors who would be going out at an event and promoting the latest release, along with other activities they may be up to?
14:36:14 <jwf> dhanesh95: Well, in the past, we've had two types of release notes. The "pretty" one on the Magazine / shipped on the announce@lists.fp.o list, and then a longer, much more technical one on the wiki.
14:37:06 <bkp> dhanesh95 jwf: In some projects, release notes are the very technical "here's what we changed" document, and the release announcement is the more user- and press-friendly "hey! check this out!"
14:37:46 <FranciscoD> maybe have a detailed one that includes technical info for the commblog, and a summarised user friendly version from this for the magazine and public announcements?
14:38:03 <x3mboy> jwf, I think we should align this with the idea of targeted F26 Talking Points
14:38:05 <bkp> FranciscoD: That could work
14:38:06 <FranciscoD> the ambassadors, and the community in general will benefit from some tech info IMO
14:38:15 <FranciscoD> x3mboy: ++
14:38:23 <FranciscoD> are docs still doing beats?
14:38:36 <jwf> So maybe we should clarify our vocabulary on this. I feel like "one-page release notes" is leaning more heavily on our announcement we ship on the Magazine / elsewhere, and I think this is the one we should maybe focus on the most. If we have a "base" for the announcement, then we could possibly focus it more towards a general audience (i.e. what goes on the Magazine) and then one that is more of an "internal" sort of focus, for sharing with
14:38:37 <jwf> Ambassadors?
14:38:59 <jwf> FranciscoD: I like that idea.
14:39:17 <dhanesh95> FranciscoD: +1
14:39:20 <jwf> FranciscoD: As for the Docs team, I'm honestly not sure… if bexelbie has time later for the meeting, he might be able to clarify.
14:39:26 <FranciscoD> I've always been confused a bit about beats: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Documentation_beats
14:39:40 <FranciscoD> "This page lists all of the writing beats for the release notes, and who is assigned to them. See an empty slot? That means it's waiting for you! More specifically... "
14:39:48 <bexelbie> .hello bex
14:39:49 <zodbot> bexelbie: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' <bex@pobox.com>
14:39:53 * jwf waves
14:39:56 <FranciscoD> if that's so, we really should sync up with docs and do this together
14:39:57 <jwf> #chair bexelbie
14:39:57 <zodbot> Current chairs: FranciscoD bexelbie bkp dhanesh95 jwf x3mboy
14:40:20 <jwf> FranciscoD: I feel like it would be more beneficial for us to leave the longer, more technical-heavy parts, to the Docs team
14:40:48 <FranciscoD> ok, as long as we're sure that the content is different or is intended for different target audiences
14:40:53 <jwf> I feel like in the benefit of preventing overlap and also not burning anyone out, it would be best to keep those two things separate (two things being [1] condensed release announcement, and [2] full technical notes)
14:41:07 <FranciscoD> if a user finds the beats, and they say "release notes", it would leave the user confused
14:41:13 * jwf notes we have 20 minutes left and still really need to cover talking points today…
14:41:19 <bkp> And as long as we have a link to the more technical content.
14:41:44 <jwf> Maybe what would be helpful is splitting these different parts of the press kit apart, and having mini-proposals for what those would look like?
14:41:56 <FranciscoD> jwf: and the full tech notes are something we would work on, or would this be what the doc team does?
14:42:05 <bkp> jwf: +1
14:42:08 * FranciscoD did say he was confused about beats and how they fit in with mktg
14:42:13 <FranciscoD> (if at all)
14:42:16 <jwf> FranciscoD: I would strongly, strongly like to keep that with the Docs team
14:42:21 <dhanesh95> I agree with leaving the technical parts to the Docs team.
14:42:37 * jwf nods to bkp
14:43:03 <FranciscoD> ok, next silly question - does that mean we wait for the doc team to write up the detailed tech bits so that we can summarise it for the condensed announcement?
14:43:19 <FranciscoD> or do we let them do their thing, and do ours separately?
14:43:20 <bexelbie> However, I encourage everyone to have input into what needs to be in the technical release notes to help docs not have to redo research already done here
14:43:31 <jwf> So in that case, could we maybe split this up into smaller action items for people to give a sort of mini-proposal for each of these different pieces of the press kit? For example, one person works on giving an idea of what the 1-page release notes look like, another on background modules, another on feature modules, etc.
14:43:44 <FranciscoD> bexelbie: yeh, that's what I'm worried about - duplication of work rather than co-ordination
14:43:44 <jwf> And then we can revisit this during the week or at the next meeting.
14:43:58 <FranciscoD> sounds like a plan
14:44:04 <bexelbie> FranciscoD, I believe that docs would be open to revisiting this process, but that is my take on it
14:44:19 <jwf> Okay, cool. FranciscoD, do you have any experience working with the Docs team or have any context into the type of work they're doing?
14:44:40 <FranciscoD> I did do a beat a few releases ago, yea
14:44:49 <FranciscoD> I can always bug randomuser :D
14:44:57 <x3mboy> xD
14:45:16 <FranciscoD> I owe him a lot of beer anyway. Adding a few more won't change anything
14:45:23 <dhanesh95> FranciscoD is omnipresent
14:45:51 <x3mboy> I think is a great idea to line up with Docs, because if we are talking about the same, but each with a different perspective, then we could produce inconsistent work
14:46:06 <x3mboy> I'm not sure about my English in the last sentence
14:46:10 <jwf> FranciscoD: Okay, cool! If you've got a lot going on, you don't have to take this on, but do you think you could put an idea of what a one-page release notes (maybe we should just start calling this **announcement**?) should look like into our ticket? This can include details like (1) timeline for when they should be created during the release, (2) type of content to include in the announcement, and (3) how it should be delivered?
14:46:30 <x3mboy> Sorry, I'm working in 3-languages now
14:46:37 <jwf> This can really be a few bulletpoints, but it would help for us to have a focused place to start discussing next time on this. :)
14:46:45 <FranciscoD> sure, assign it to me
14:46:48 <FranciscoD> :)
14:47:00 <jwf> bkp: Is there anything in the list we have now that you think you might be able to put together? https://pagure.io/fedora-marketing/issue/242#comment-193450
14:47:01 <bexelbie> I think it is important to make sure that the rest of the project, especially groups like docs
14:47:03 <jwf> FranciscoD: Doing so!
14:47:19 <bexelbie> knows what is being emphasized by Marketing.  It looks bad if a talking point is about Feature X and that is no where to be found anywhere else
14:47:25 <FranciscoD> bexelbie: ++
14:47:37 <FranciscoD> I'll run around and keep docs and mktg in sync wrt release notes and beats
14:47:46 <jwf> #action FranciscoD Draft a short proposal of what one-page release announcements looks like for the press kit, with (1) timeline for when they should be created during the release, (2) type of content to include in the announcement, and (3) how it should be delivered
14:48:04 <FranciscoD> jwf: are we using the milestone feature in pagure yet?
14:48:10 <bkp> jwf: I'd be willing to try the one-page release notes, but was someone else doing that?
14:48:17 <jwf> bexelbie: Ideally, that would be an important detail to note for the timeline of what the announcement looks like.
14:48:25 <jwf> FranciscoD: I have the Marketing repo set up to use them, yeah!
14:48:25 <FranciscoD> bkp: take it up too - more people means better work ;)
14:48:34 <dhanesh95> I have an idea for the announcement but I'll probably post a comment on the ticket
14:48:37 <jwf> bkp: Ah, yeah, you could coordinate / discuss ideas with FranciscoD together?
14:48:50 <jwf> I can #undo that and maybe double-assign it so you two have a chance to discuss it more fully in channel?
14:48:52 <FranciscoD> jwf: ah awesome, do you think we should have thinks set up maybe around beta release? Similar to timelines that the release eng team use?
14:49:04 <FranciscoD> thin*g*s
14:49:09 <bkp> FranciscoD: Sure, but my availability this coming week will be sparce... going to SCALE
14:49:11 <jwf> FranciscoD: Ideally, we would need our first deliverable in time for the Beta release
14:49:29 <bexelbie> jwf, that means we need to figure out what those Features are at the beginning of hte process, imho
14:49:33 <jwf> FranciscoD / bkp: Maybe you two can bounce ideas, and then FranciscoD can put the thoughts together in the ticket?
14:49:37 <FranciscoD> bkp: no worries, there's time for beta, I *think*
14:49:46 <FranciscoD> yeh, bkp and I'll manage it between us
14:49:50 * jwf nods
14:49:51 <jwf> #undo
14:49:51 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: ACTION by jwf at 14:47:46 : FranciscoD Draft a short proposal of what one-page release announcements looks like for the press kit, with (1) timeline for when they should be created during the release, (2) type of content to include in the announcement, and (3) how it should be delivered
14:50:03 <jwf> #action FranciscoD / bkp Discuss and draft a short proposal of what one-page release announcements looks like for the press kit, with (1) timeline for when they should be created during the release, (2) type of content to include in the announcement, and (3) how it should be delivered
14:50:14 <jwf> bexelbie: Right, which I think is where the talking points fit in.
14:50:44 <jwf> In the interest of time, I will go ahead and action myself for background modules / past press releases, but we really need to cover talking points, I feel like
14:50:51 * jwf wonders if we should extend the meeting time 30 minutes too :P
14:50:59 <bexelbie> jwf, yes, but I think we need to almost set the talking points at the beginning of the releaes process, not at the end
14:51:05 <bexelbie> so we know where we are driving too
14:51:31 <jwf> #action jwf Draft a simple proposal for what background modules / past press coverage should be in the press kit, add comment to ticket #242 for discussion at next meeting
14:51:34 <x3mboy> We need larger meetings in a lot of teams :(
14:51:54 <jwf> #info === Ticket #245: "Create Fedora 26 talking points" ===
14:51:58 <bkp> I have a hard stop in 9 minutes today, I fear
14:51:58 <jwf> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-marketing/issue/245
14:52:03 <jwf> #info Talking points officially start today, now that the change window is closed for Fedora 26. We're still awaiting feedback from the Council, but we try starting with the raw data that is on the existing talking points page and try to organize that in a way that we can work with? We can also try to task outreach to different WGs / SIGs, but this depends on if we want to collect information by technical grouping or by audience.
14:52:19 * jwf goes to find said link for what we have so far
14:52:35 <jwf> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_talking_points
14:52:47 <jwf> bexelbie: You mean like filtering down the raw data we have right now? ^
14:53:25 * x3mboy is happy to see the talking points page looong and full of info
14:53:26 <bexelbie> jwf, yes, but right now we are fitting hte talking points to whatever is being produced.  Why did we produce this release.  Those are the real talking points
14:53:53 <jwf> For me, I think the biggest question is how we want to work on soliciting feedback - do we want WGs / SIGs to give us talking points that fit for specific audiences, or is it better / more efficient for them to give us comments like we have in the wiki page now (which was taken from pre-existing wiki pages, not people) and then we sort them by audience?
14:55:08 <x3mboy> That's a hard questions
14:55:15 <jwf> bexelbie: It might be better for us to choose a better vocabulary word for these, though. These are technical talking points with regards to the changes that happen every release. While I understand the angle you're getting at for telling the story of the release and why we produce it, I feel like this is something more fitting for the context of an announcement, not the technical talking points.
14:55:24 <x3mboy> Because some audiences are already covered by labs
14:55:27 <jwf> The technical talking points play a vital role for two reasons:
14:55:28 <dhanesh95> How about we let them give us talking points that fit for specific audiences?
14:55:55 <jwf> (1) Useful for Ambassadors to be informed about changes to the newest version of Fedora, and then also propagate that information at events and local activities
14:55:59 <bexelbie> I feel like we have three broad targets, conversion, retention, and koolaid.  Conversion is to get new users - so why should I as an X use F26.  Retention is keeping existing users - As an X using F26 why is my life better so I don't go shopping elsewhere.  Koolaid are our "true believers" who mostly wnat to know which bit flipped from 1 to 0.
14:56:14 <jwf> (2) Media sites take our talking points and (more or less) repeat them out to their audiences
14:57:02 <jwf> dhanesh95: I feel like that would greatly relieve the amount of work on us and let us spend more time focusing on what we're doing with the talking points. But I'm also not sure if it might lead to the accidental exclusion of important information.
14:57:16 <bexelbie> jwf, I understand your point.  I agree that we need to provide the list for those use cases, however, I feel like there is a large audience of people who are motivated by their needs, not hte technical merits of the project.  We don't seem to really talk to them.
14:57:32 <x3mboy> I think we are mixing some things
14:58:03 <jwf> bexelbie: Would tying these talking points into the audience buckets that we discussed before line up more to what you have in mind?
14:58:14 <bexelbie> yes, it is a start
14:58:15 <x3mboy> Are there 2 classification of targets? Am I misuderstanding the conversation?
14:58:22 <jwf> x3mboy: Yeah, I think "talking points" is too vague of a term
14:58:30 <jwf> bexelbie: Right – so this is what we're trying to do. :)
14:58:38 * bexelbie defines "talking points" as things we want said at a booth/talk
14:58:55 * x3mboy agreed with bexelbie
14:59:10 <bexelbie> jwf, as long as out output goal isn't just "these specific technical changes are important for developers - but we aren't going to tell you why"
14:59:37 <jwf> bexelbie: That is one of the focuses I'd like to have the "new" talking points include
15:00:15 <jwf> I see this in two ways, where we have the technical talking points isolated to their own, and then the talking points of things we want at booth/talks. However, I am worried about whether we will be able to realistically produce that in a release if we split them
15:00:16 <bexelbie> jwf, do we know enough about the target audiences to be able to do this or do we need to learn more about them first?
15:00:38 <bkp> Gotta drop. Will check minutes.
15:00:46 <bexelbie> jwf, I believe what you are calling "technical talking points" are release notes
15:01:06 <jwf> bexelbie: I think it would help to know more, but we're trying to figure that out here: https://pagure.io/fedora-marketing/issue/245#comment-193454
15:01:16 <jwf> Okay, we're a minute over, and we do have to give up this channel for the next meeting
15:01:28 <bexelbie> It may be because I am not in a particular target audience, but if someone said to me at a Fedora booth that it was important that SSD cache for userid information was faster (period) ... I would stop talking to that person.
15:01:32 <jwf> I'm going to put some dates into the meeting minutes, and then we'll close out and head ovet to #fedora-mktg
15:01:46 <jwf> #topic Upcoming Tasks
15:01:46 <jwf> #link https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-26/f-26-marketing-tasks.html
15:01:51 <jwf> #info (1) Change Checkpoint: Completion deadline (Tue 2017-02-28)
15:01:55 <jwf> #info (2) Create Talking Points (start: Tue 2017-02-28)
15:01:59 <jwf> #info (3) Proposed Changes Profiles (start: Tue 2017-03-07)
15:02:05 <jwf> #info (4) Email WGs to solicit bullet points for Alpha release announcement (start: Thu 2017-03-09)
15:02:17 <jwf> #topic Open floor - skipping since we're over time, heading to #fedora-mktg
15:02:19 <jwf> #endmeeting