Jacqueline McNally wrote:
John McCreesh wrote:
[...] I
think it's worth a discussion (both here and in LWN) about how we proceed
in future.
I suspect there may not be a lot of discussion on this until the 11 May.
I was going to ask "what is the significance of 11 May?" but then
I saw the notice on the LWN page that the article would become
freely available on that date.
Since I am a non-subscriber, what I am going to say now does not
taking into account anything that was said in the article. So
there may be issues that have not occurred to me.
I think the way this marketing effort was done was excellent and
in keeping with our ideals as a open project. IMO, attempting to
prevent "leaks" by trying to do things less openly causes more
problems than it solves, and often is unsuccessful in preventing
leaks anyway. In this case, what harm was done by the leak? None,
as far as I can tell. (Granted, there may be occasions when a
less open discussion is important, but IMO those occasions would
be very much the exceptions.)
The only thing I'm aware of that we need to change is adding a
prominent notice on draft pages: either stating that they are
draft pages, or that they are "embargoed" until a specific time
and date, as is done on press releases. That way people may find
the pages, but journalists and most other people will honour the
embargo and not publicise the pages or the campaign prematurely.
--Jean
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
