> * "High bar, need to show a distinct problem space". The three initial > products are basically all areas we want to cover, and they don't really > overlap. This approach says that for a new primary product to be added, > there should be a new, separate problem space to tackle -- there > shouldn't be internal competition, and users should easily find the > product that matches their needs without going through a "choose your > own adventure!" process. > > * "Low bar, need to show viable resources to do the work". The idea here > is that if someone wants to contribute to working on something in > Fedora, and can demonstrate that they can pull it off, we should > promote it. I think this camp recognizes that it makes the web site > more complicated, but judges supporting our contributors to be more > important. > > So, marketing team people: what do you think? Which is the right general > approach? If we do the second thing, does it dilute our ability to deliver > the Fedora Message? How can we overcome that? Other questions? Other > answers?
From the perspective of marketing things, I'm not sure they're particularly different. If I understand what you're asking, serving these "products" doesn't detract from a Fedora message any more than marketing RHEL prevents the company from having an overall Red Hat message. But I'll just add some notes: - I'm still concerned about the Red Hat point of view on using the word "products" for Fedora things. - We are already understaffed, so to speak, as a marketing team. We may be able to sort-of serve three things, but if we're going to be adding anything that someone "can pull off," we just won't be equally serving everyone. If I had to vote, I'd thus be inclined to lead towards the high bar option. Ruth -- marketing mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
