Hi, Jeff
Not sure I've "met" you before, so welcome...
On 2006-05-12, at 11:23 , Jeffrey G. Causey, CPA wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, I think part of the problem was not so much
that the
mailing list discussions were or were not publicly viewable. My
understanding is that a web page had been created with a "live" url
that LWN
was able to point to even though it was not "finished".
IIRC, part of the problem was that even though "rough draft" pages
could be
created, the peculiarities of the Collabnet platform forced the
creation of a
"live" page so things like look/feel (formatting) could be worked on.
I guess the question is whether a sandbox can be created so the
Collabnet
pages can be created and reviewed before they are actually published.
Hm; thanks for the clarification. We can't easily have a sandbox as
you suggest, but there are ways around the problem of live
urls....Here is what I do all the time for the homepage: I just name
it obscurely and ask for people to review the obscure page. We can
also use obscure URLs on Marketing, and in fact, this was done with
the Why pages, when Cristian and John worked on preliminary versions
on Website project, which is designed for this sort of thing.
Best,
Louis
PS Jeff, can you bottom post? it's easier on others, as that way we
can pretend to have a conversation. Also, keep in mind that this list
is decidedly public, and you should be careful about what you want
made public, like your phone number. :-)
Jeff Causey
On Friday May 12 2006 10:55, Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
Hi,
On 2006-05-12, at 10:38 , John McCreesh wrote:
Now that the LWN article has moved from being 'subscriber only' to
'general release', I've re-read all the comments:
http://lwn.net/Articles/182092/#Comments
The balance of opinion seems to be:
"Seriously, breaking news of a PR campaign *can* derail it ... That
said, the OOo marketing people who made it Google-visible before it
was
supposed to go public are the real idiots here!"
I'm not sure that our mailing lists *are* Google-visible,
Depends on the list. "Private" lists requiring someone to be logged
in to view the archives are not.
but the point
is still valid. They are public, and anyone can join and listen in.
"Get
Legal" is the first in a series of attention-grabbing campaigns
as we
develop the proposition "Why OpenOffice.org". I believe we will get
most
impact if we can maintain an element of surprise.
Comments?
Conduct PR discussions on [EMAIL PROTECTED], which requires one to login
to view the archives.
We have of course had this discussion before, and the alternative
then--offlist discussions or using really private lists--is
problematical, both because it can be a pain to track and because it
defies the principles of openness.
Hence, let's use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for discussions like this and accept
that it is not perfect (spies) but is good enough.
BTW, I hardly think the Get Legal campaign was derailed b/c it was
made public before it was officially made public :-)
Ciao
Louis
John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
