On Thursday 09 February 2006 10:40, Steven Pauwels wrote: > Hi Graham, Daniel, > > Thank ou for your input. This is exacctly what I am aiming for. > Information that can help me to define a possibility. > > In reply: > - If the 3.0 release is so far away, it is to far :) > -Not using version figures 5.2.6.458 is a much better for marketing > then stressing with a new version. I believe the version thing should > be kept as to define what version people are working with, but should > be dropped in marketing actions. Using 'flaming flamingo' as a > version definer (or any other) is fun, but leads me to the EE > discussion we are still having.
Having said that Codenames pre-release are a well accepted strategy in software development. Ubuntu simply took it a little further I would suggest sticking with a "O" theme for consistency and allows for some cool graphical ideas for promotional materials and use names. Names travel across languages much better than say adjectival words like Breezy or Warty. Otto is already taken as is ObiWan. So in their absence my two favorites: Oscar and Othello > > We could handle this in a pro way by doing: > > - about spash screen with 'special thanks to developping team' with a > link to a webpage with their foto's and names. (I will be happy to > make such a page for each component) > - removing the EEs (a compromise is a good start, we could ask the > installing administrator to give us his oppinion on if they should > stay in or not and why when he is installing and base a future > release EE situation on that information, as it is the most correct > information we can get) > - defining a moment when to release a version with an event (IMHO it > would take about 6 months to prep a release 'event', depending on the > help and coöp we get) Given that dating software releases is a very imprecise art, we would probably be best to use a campaign that builds anticipation. We can use the Specification lists (http://specs.openoffice.org) to give us material for this sort of thing. > - When discussing release 'names', ccan we include the change af the > OOo name as is? I think forking OOo is not a good idea. Using a new > name as a marketing message howover works fine. Can we codename this > for discussions sake? (releasing 'Breezy Badger' or any other > suggestion) Above for my suggestions. the "O" Theme also allows for some aliterative catch phrases: "Othello, Open for Offices" :) Cheers Yo -- Graham Lauder OpenOffice.org Marcon New Zealand [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html INGOTs Gold Assessor Trainer www.theingots.org Member Open Document fellowship http://www.opendocumentfellowship.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
