Re: push back on negative articles
Hey Bruce, Unfortunately, Thursday's packed for me - I'm actually 9 months pregnant, so between doctor's appointments and calls that I've tried to schedule for these last weeks, a number of my days have really filled up. If email works for you just as well, I think it would be easier. And there's the added benefit that I can send some of the questions to other GNOME people if it makes more sense for them to answer them to make for a better story :) Otherwise, I'm more free on Friday so we can definitely work something out. thanks again for your interest in this! karen On Mon, August 20, 2012 9:17 pm, Bruce Byfield wrote: > Hi, Karen: > > How is your time on Thursday? I'm available 10am-6pm Pacific time I > suggest > spending 30-40 minutes on the phone. We could also do chat, or I could > send > you questions by email, but the phone is probably the least effort for > you. > > > On Monday, August 20, 2012 12:55:09 PM Karen Sandler wrote: >> On Mon, August 20, 2012 3:04 pm, Stormy Peters wrote: >> > Hi Bruce, >> > >> > Thanks for reaching out! >> > >> > We'd definitely like to take you up on your and talk to you. Maybe >> Karen >> > or >> > Sri would be the right person? (Karen, Sri?) Or Allan Day? >> >> Hi Bruce, >> >> I'd love to talk to you! (as always) Perhaps we can do that with Sri or >> Allan, if they'd like too? :) >> >> I second Stormy's sentiment - thanks for reaching out. >> >> karen >> >> > Stormy >> > >> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Bruce Byfield >> > >> > wrote: >> >> ** >> >> >> >> Negative articles? Are you kidding? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Because I mention what many people in the community are saying? What >> >> some >> >> GNOME developers are saying? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If I didn't care what was happening in the free software community, I >> >> wouldn't have written the article in the first place. I would be >> doing a >> >> poor job as a journalist, and doing nothing for the community if I >> only >> >> reported on the happy things and ignored the problems. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That said, if anyone cares to engage in a responsible conversation >> about >> >> GNOME's current state and how the project is being received, you're >> >> welcome >> >> to get in touch. I can't guarantee publication of the result -- that >> is >> >> ultimately up to my editors -- but I would certainly be interested in >> >> writing an article that accurately reflects opposing views. I don't >> have >> >> to >> >> agree with a position to think that it's worth letting other people >> >> hear. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Bruce Byfield 604-421-7189 (on Pacific time) >> >> >> >> blog: https://brucebyfield.wordpress.com >> >> >> >> website: http://members.axion.net/~bbyfield/ >> >> >> >> -- >> >> marketing-list mailing list >> >> marketing-list@gnome.org >> >> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list >> > >> > -- >> > marketing-list mailing list >> > marketing-list@gnome.org >> > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list > > -- > Bruce Byfield 604-421-7189 (on Pacific time) > blog: https://brucebyfield.wordpress.com > website: http://members.axion.net/~bbyfield/ > -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: push back on negative articles
Hi, Karen: How is your time on Thursday? I'm available 10am-6pm Pacific time I suggest spending 30-40 minutes on the phone. We could also do chat, or I could send you questions by email, but the phone is probably the least effort for you. On Monday, August 20, 2012 12:55:09 PM Karen Sandler wrote: > On Mon, August 20, 2012 3:04 pm, Stormy Peters wrote: > > Hi Bruce, > > > > Thanks for reaching out! > > > > We'd definitely like to take you up on your and talk to you. Maybe Karen > > or > > Sri would be the right person? (Karen, Sri?) Or Allan Day? > > Hi Bruce, > > I'd love to talk to you! (as always) Perhaps we can do that with Sri or > Allan, if they'd like too? :) > > I second Stormy's sentiment - thanks for reaching out. > > karen > > > Stormy > > > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Bruce Byfield > > > > wrote: > >> ** > >> > >> Negative articles? Are you kidding? > >> > >> > >> > >> Because I mention what many people in the community are saying? What > >> some > >> GNOME developers are saying? > >> > >> > >> > >> If I didn't care what was happening in the free software community, I > >> wouldn't have written the article in the first place. I would be doing a > >> poor job as a journalist, and doing nothing for the community if I only > >> reported on the happy things and ignored the problems. > >> > >> > >> > >> That said, if anyone cares to engage in a responsible conversation about > >> GNOME's current state and how the project is being received, you're > >> welcome > >> to get in touch. I can't guarantee publication of the result -- that is > >> ultimately up to my editors -- but I would certainly be interested in > >> writing an article that accurately reflects opposing views. I don't have > >> to > >> agree with a position to think that it's worth letting other people > >> hear. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Bruce Byfield 604-421-7189 (on Pacific time) > >> > >> blog: https://brucebyfield.wordpress.com > >> > >> website: http://members.axion.net/~bbyfield/ > >> > >> -- > >> marketing-list mailing list > >> marketing-list@gnome.org > >> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list > > > > -- > > marketing-list mailing list > > marketing-list@gnome.org > > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list -- Bruce Byfield 604-421-7189 (on Pacific time) blog: https://brucebyfield.wordpress.com website: http://members.axion.net/~bbyfield/ -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: push back on negative articles
On Monday, August 20, 2012 12:14:20 PM Olav Vitters wrote: > Hi Bruce, > I totally was wrong about you. My apologies. Very good of you to say so. Thanks, and no hard feelings. -- Bruce Byfield 604-421-7189 (on Pacific time) blog: https://brucebyfield.wordpress.com website: http://members.axion.net/~bbyfield/ -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: push back on negative articles
On Mon, August 20, 2012 3:04 pm, Stormy Peters wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > Thanks for reaching out! > > We'd definitely like to take you up on your and talk to you. Maybe Karen > or > Sri would be the right person? (Karen, Sri?) Or Allan Day? Hi Bruce, I'd love to talk to you! (as always) Perhaps we can do that with Sri or Allan, if they'd like too? :) I second Stormy's sentiment - thanks for reaching out. karen > > Stormy > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Bruce Byfield > wrote: > >> ** >> >> Negative articles? Are you kidding? >> >> >> >> Because I mention what many people in the community are saying? What >> some >> GNOME developers are saying? >> >> >> >> If I didn't care what was happening in the free software community, I >> wouldn't have written the article in the first place. I would be doing a >> poor job as a journalist, and doing nothing for the community if I only >> reported on the happy things and ignored the problems. >> >> >> >> That said, if anyone cares to engage in a responsible conversation about >> GNOME's current state and how the project is being received, you're >> welcome >> to get in touch. I can't guarantee publication of the result -- that is >> ultimately up to my editors -- but I would certainly be interested in >> writing an article that accurately reflects opposing views. I don't have >> to >> agree with a position to think that it's worth letting other people >> hear. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Bruce Byfield 604-421-7189 (on Pacific time) >> >> blog: https://brucebyfield.wordpress.com >> >> website: http://members.axion.net/~bbyfield/ >> >> -- >> marketing-list mailing list >> marketing-list@gnome.org >> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list >> >> > -- > marketing-list mailing list > marketing-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list > -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: push back on negative articles
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 08:36:10AM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: > As stated before: you can disagree what you want. But do so nicely. > You've given no arguments, just focussed on trying to rile emotions. > Such behaviour is not acceptable here. So bye. As pointed out by others, but also realized by me: I was wrong in jumping the gun so quickly. I still really really dislike the comparison :P I do like heated discussions though, which didn't help.. Anyway, please accept my apologies in jumping the gun quickly, and just tell me when you think I'm an ass or if something is not acceptable. -- Regards, Olav -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: push back on negative articles
Hi Bruce, On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:10:18AM -0700, Bruce Byfield wrote: > Negative articles? Are you kidding? > > Because I mention what many people in the community are saying? What some > GNOME developers are saying? I totally was wrong about you. My apologies. I honestly was only reading the article, nothing more. It seems like yet another rant, based on things I in my head explained loads of times (I spent loads of hours each week saying pretty much the same thing). > If I didn't care what was happening in the free software community, I > wouldn't > have written the article in the first place. I would be doing a poor job as a > journalist, and doing nothing for the community if I only reported on the > happy things and ignored the problems. > > That said, if anyone cares to engage in a responsible conversation about > GNOME's current state and how the project is being received, you're welcome > to > get in touch. I can't guarantee publication of the result -- that is > ultimately up to my editors -- but I would certainly be interested in writing > an article that accurately reflects opposing views. I don't have to agree > with a position to think that it's worth letting other people hear. About the latter: I actually do like if people disagree. I just thought some assumptions were really easy and IIRC there were some bits about 'GNOME developers will probably do XXX' that made me assume the worst. In any case: sorry. -- Regards, Olav -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: push back on negative articles
Hi Bruce, Thanks for reaching out! We'd definitely like to take you up on your and talk to you. Maybe Karen or Sri would be the right person? (Karen, Sri?) Or Allan Day? Stormy On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Bruce Byfield wrote: > ** > > Negative articles? Are you kidding? > > > > Because I mention what many people in the community are saying? What some > GNOME developers are saying? > > > > If I didn't care what was happening in the free software community, I > wouldn't have written the article in the first place. I would be doing a > poor job as a journalist, and doing nothing for the community if I only > reported on the happy things and ignored the problems. > > > > That said, if anyone cares to engage in a responsible conversation about > GNOME's current state and how the project is being received, you're welcome > to get in touch. I can't guarantee publication of the result -- that is > ultimately up to my editors -- but I would certainly be interested in > writing an article that accurately reflects opposing views. I don't have to > agree with a position to think that it's worth letting other people hear. > > > > -- > > Bruce Byfield 604-421-7189 (on Pacific time) > > blog: https://brucebyfield.wordpress.com > > website: http://members.axion.net/~bbyfield/ > > -- > marketing-list mailing list > marketing-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list > > -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: push back on negative articles
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:54:56AM -0500, Brian Cameron wrote: > the userbase that wants it. The GNOME community could, I think, be more > clear and proactive about how GNOME 2 and "GNOME Fallback" will be > supported going forward. Any GNOME release is supported for about 6 months. GNOME 2: is not supported (6 months passed with the release of 3.0). GNOME fallback was discussed various month ago. It needs to be supported upto 3.8 at which point hopefully llvmpipe is good enough + OpenBSD might support non-llvmpipe. After 3.6 the progress on that will be checked again. Llvmpipe will not be the perfect answer in any forseeable future. Various commercial offerings might support any particular GNOME version and/or components for loads of years. But that's completely different (your bugs will be closed on GNOME Bugzilla, not on a distro). -- Regards, Olav -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: push back on negative articles
Negative articles? Are you kidding? Because I mention what many people in the community are saying? What some GNOME developers are saying? If I didn't care what was happening in the free software community, I wouldn't have written the article in the first place. I would be doing a poor job as a journalist, and doing nothing for the community if I only reported on the happy things and ignored the problems. That said, if anyone cares to engage in a responsible conversation about GNOME's current state and how the project is being received, you're welcome to get in touch. I can't guarantee publication of the result -- that is ultimately up to my editors -- but I would certainly be interested in writing an article that accurately reflects opposing views. I don't have to agree with a position to think that it's worth letting other people hear. -- Bruce Byfield 604-421-7189 (on Pacific time) blog: https://brucebyfield.wordpress.com website: http://members.axion.net/~bbyfield/ -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Ubuntu GNOME Flavor naming
hi, On 12-08-20 12:36 AM, Jeremy Bicha wrote: 1. GNOMEbuntu 2. Ubuntu GNOME Edition 3. GNObuntu Ryan has already registered http://gnomebuntu.org/ so I'm leaning towards the first name if that's acceptable. The reason I like the first name (at least in some form) is because if I ask someone "what distro?" they will not reply with "Ubuntu GNOME Edition". It's going to get nick-named "gubuntu" or something like that in casual usage. Having an official nickname like "gnomebuntu" is important if we want to avoid this. The idea is that this could be used in the domain name and metapackage/seed names while reserving the longer name for official marketing/branding materials (website titles, splash screens, etc). I have less of an opinion about what the "official" name should be. A name like "Ubuntu GNOME Edition" or even "GNOME, powered by Ubuntu" were discussed at the UDS and I think they're okay. I registered the domain at the time, though, because I was pretty sure that even if we pick one of these names we would require a shorter nickname, and imho, "gnomebuntu" is the only one I consider acceptable (rejecting explicit names like "gnubuntu" "gnobuntu" "gubuntu", etc). Consider http://ubuntugnomeedition.org/ and you start to see what I mean... Cheers -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Ubuntu GNOME Flavor naming
On 20 August 2012 05:14, Bastien Nocera wrote: >> >> 1. GNOMEbuntu >> 2. Ubuntu GNOME Edition >> 3. GNObuntu >> >> Ryan has already registered http://gnomebuntu.org/ so I'm leaning >> towards the first name if that's acceptable. > > From how I understand our trademark guidelines, you can't use them to > make compounds names or logos. So 1. and 3. would be out. Well I think #3 may not infringe GNOME's trademark either as it only shares 3 letters with the GNOME trademark. > https://live.gnome.org/Foundation/LicensingGuidelines > > If you were to specifically request for one of 1. or 3. to be approved > as an authorised use, we would probably want to see explanations as to > why other names could not be used. The difficulty is that we want a name that's simple and clearly represents that it is Ubuntu with GNOME. I believe that's impossible to do if we can't use the word "GNOME". On 20 August 2012 05:26, Olav Vitters wrote: > I pretty much lack the background on this, if the following accurate: > - Not a Canonical idea (as in corporate decision) > I really like having a GNOME edition; this could end up being the > closest match to GNOME ever. But I want to give credit where credit is > due, and therefore need to know whom to credit. Yes, this project is community-ran. Once it gets approved as an official flavor, Canonical will provide the standard infrastructure support it gives to other flavors like Kubuntu or Xubuntu, but Canonical does not control the development direction of these alternative Ubuntu releases. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RecognizedFlavors Seb Bacher did say last December that "it would be really cool" if a GNOME Shell derivative ISO was created. He also helped get the topic on the schedule at the last Ubuntu Developer Summit. But basically, the project only exists because community volunteers (and possibly some Canonical employees on their free time) are making it happen. On 20 August 2012 06:38, Andreas Nilsson wrote: > Just to make sure, would 2 be acceptable with respect to the Ubuntu > trademark usage? I believe any of the three names would be acceptable with the Ubuntu trademark people as there is a lot of precedent for the naming conventions but I haven't confirmed this yet. Jeremy -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: push back on negative articles
On 08/20/12 09:00 AM, Stormy Peters wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Olav Vitters mailto:o...@vitters.nl>> wrote: As stated before: you can disagree what you want. But do so nicely. You've given no arguments, just focussed on trying to rile emotions. Such behaviour is not acceptable here. So bye. Olav, I respectively disagree with you. I think Larry's emails were fine. +1 While it is important to "push back" on negative articles, we should focus on finding positive ways to respond. I agree that it would be good if we could find more ways to focus media attention on how upcoming releases, like 3.6, have been addressing real user concerns, bugs, and complaints. GNOME 3, like many new technologies, has been controversial. Public opinion will sometimes challange our technical leadership, and that is probably a good thing. While I found some of Bruce Byfield's criticisms to be over the top, many of his concerns did seem fair. Also, I found that I most disagreed with Bruce about points where I could understand him being misinformed. Many of Bruce's most serious concerns seemed to be about the future of "GNOME Fallback". I think the GNOME community could set these kinds of concerns at rest easily by making a reasonable commitment to support the userbase that wants it. The GNOME community could, I think, be more clear and proactive about how GNOME 2 and "GNOME Fallback" will be supported going forward. But, in the long run, we can never be reminded too much to focus on our end users, who we strive to keep things simple for. Brian -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: push back on negative articles
I think we could arrange some media training if people want to attend. Sally Dhudairi works with Apache and lives in Boston. She has expressed interest in helping us in the past. Maybe she'd be willing to host a session at the Boston Summit. If she can't, I know a few other people who would be good and might be willing to help. Here are my basic takeaways from the several media trainings I've done: 1) Know your story. Know what you want the other person to take away from the conversation. Write those 3 things down. 2) No matter what the question, try to tell your story. Or how that relates to your story. See #1. 3) If someone asks you a tough question, you don't have to say "no, but ..." Try to get back to #1. 4) Practice how you'll answer the tough questions ahead of time. (You probably know what they are.) Most companies put out FAQs for their spokespeople when there's big news. Included in that is how to answer the difficult questions. While a few reporters only want the controversy, most of them are very nice and also want the story you are passionate about. :) Stormy On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Karen Sandler wrote: > I love that we're re-evaluating the ways that we handle press and that > we're looking for opportunities to improve. > > I think we should focus on ways to get positive press, as others have > said, and I think one of the best ways to do that right now is probably to > talk about the 3.6 release. Maybe we should systematically look at the > negative articles and make sure that we address the substantive points in > our press about the new release? I think a free software community run > project is different than a company's product in that we'll always be a > work in progress. It's ok to talk about areas that can be improved for > future, for example. I do think there's a lot of great stuff happening > that I gets overlooked in an effort to zone in on juicy disagreement and > we can probably help with that by making sure we take opportunities to > talk about the good things. > > We've still got a good amount of time to work on it too. > > On Sun, August 19, 2012 6:43 pm, Olav Vitters wrote: > > > Briefly, any politician or anyone dealing with the press is media > > trained. Any big company will have spoke persons (either someone > > external, or some high up manager). For anyone reading along, the idea > > is not that they (spoke person or anyone media trained) lie; it is to > > avoid any spins. Say exactly one thing, nothing more. > > I think it would be a good idea to get media training, and I'd be up for > being the one to do it, of course! I am a little skeptical about how > overall effective it will be (I've had small amounts of training in the > past that would have been helpful if I'd want to be more like a television > personality for example with tips on wardrobe, and I've had other media > experts tell me that everything we do is too "inside baseball"). Depending > on the price, it couldn't hurt! > > I have a few friends who have had some media training and I'll ask them > who to contact. Anyone else have any ideas where to start? Let's find out > what kind of options there are and see if we can maybe find some group > sessions that would be helpful. I think we're a handful of people that are > generating most of our marketing content right now, and it would be great > to spread the knowledge around. > > I realize that I should remind everyone that I'm probably going to be out > of contact for a lot of September on maternity leave so we should come up > with a game plan for 3.6 release related press at any rate! > > karen > > > > -- > marketing-list mailing list > marketing-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list > -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: push back on negative articles
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Karen Sandler wrote: > >> I love that we're re-evaluating the ways that we handle press and that >> we're looking for opportunities to improve. >> > > I can accept that. But I won't allow gross mis-characterizations to go > unchallenged. I can use my own plus page for that... although I might also > use the comment section to gently explain our side. > I would not create any new pages that link to the article, but I think commenting on the article in a very positive, fact based way, could be good. As we see from Olav and Larry's conversation, it's one we all feel strongly about so we need to be careful. I think it's also worth reaching out to Bruce. I'm happy to do intros. I think the right person to talk to him is someone who is passionate about GNOME 3, very patient and a good listener. :) Stormy -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: push back on negative articles
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Olav Vitters wrote: > > > > > As stated before: you can disagree what you want. But do so nicely. > You've given no arguments, just focussed on trying to rile emotions. > Such behaviour is not acceptable here. So bye. > Olav, I respectively disagree with you. I think Larry's emails were fine. Stormy -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Ubuntu GNOME Flavor naming
On 08/20/2012 06:36 AM, Jeremy Bicha wrote: On 13 August 2012 11:56, Jeremy Bicha wrote: At the Ubuntu Developer Summit in May, several of us that work with GNOME in Ubuntu discussed the need for a Ubuntu community derivative similar to Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and others but which will try to ship a relatively pure GNOME experience. The traditional Ubuntu naming convention for these alternate flavors is "Gubuntu" but it seems that could cause confusion with the pronunciation of Google's internal distribution Goobuntu. We'd like to instead use GNObuntu. We want to run our proposed name past GNOME first to avoid the hassle and conflicts of being forced to later rename the project. I think I need to clarify what I am asking for. I want to know if any of these names for a proposed GNOME spin of Ubuntu are acceptable uses of the GNOME trademark: 1. GNOMEbuntu 2. Ubuntu GNOME Edition 3. GNObuntu Ryan has already registered http://gnomebuntu.org/ so I'm leaning towards the first name if that's acceptable. Just to make sure, would 2 be acceptable with respect to the Ubuntu trademark usage? I can add 1 to the upcoming board meeting agenda, as it would need a specific Ok with respect to the trademark guidelines, as Bastien pointed out. - Andreas -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Ubuntu GNOME Flavor naming
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:25:59AM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:56:04AM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > > At the Ubuntu Developer Summit in May, several of us that work with > > GNOME in Ubuntu discussed the need for a Ubuntu community derivative > > similar to Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and others but which will try to ship a > > relatively pure GNOME experience. > > I pretty much lack the background on this, if the following accurate: ^ could you confirm > - Not a Canonical idea (as in corporate decision) > I really like having a GNOME edition; this could end up being the > closest match to GNOME ever. But I want to give credit where credit is > due, and therefore need to know whom to credit. > - You like to name it? > I really thought you left it up to us, but think I was wrong in this. > > -- > Regards, > Olav -- Regards, Olav -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Ubuntu GNOME Flavor naming
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:56:04AM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > At the Ubuntu Developer Summit in May, several of us that work with > GNOME in Ubuntu discussed the need for a Ubuntu community derivative > similar to Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and others but which will try to ship a > relatively pure GNOME experience. I pretty much lack the background on this, if the following accurate: - Not a Canonical idea (as in corporate decision) I really like having a GNOME edition; this could end up being the closest match to GNOME ever. But I want to give credit where credit is due, and therefore need to know whom to credit. - You like to name it? I really thought you left it up to us, but think I was wrong in this. -- Regards, Olav -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: Ubuntu GNOME Flavor naming
On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 00:36 -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > On 13 August 2012 11:56, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > > At the Ubuntu Developer Summit in May, several of us that work with > > GNOME in Ubuntu discussed the need for a Ubuntu community derivative > > similar to Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and others but which will try to ship a > > relatively pure GNOME experience. > > > > The traditional Ubuntu naming convention for these alternate flavors > > is "Gubuntu" but it seems that could cause confusion with the > > pronunciation of Google's internal distribution Goobuntu. We'd like to > > instead use GNObuntu. > > > > We want to run our proposed name past GNOME first to avoid the hassle > > and conflicts of being forced to later rename the project. > > I think I need to clarify what I am asking for. I want to know if any > of these names for a proposed GNOME spin of Ubuntu are acceptable uses > of the GNOME trademark: > > 1. GNOMEbuntu > 2. Ubuntu GNOME Edition > 3. GNObuntu > > Ryan has already registered http://gnomebuntu.org/ so I'm leaning > towards the first name if that's acceptable. >From how I understand our trademark guidelines, you can't use them to make compounds names or logos. So 1. and 3. would be out. https://live.gnome.org/Foundation/LicensingGuidelines If you were to specifically request for one of 1. or 3. to be approved as an authorised use, we would probably want to see explanations as to why other names could not be used. Note that this isn't legal advice of any kind, or even approval from the Board, only my personal opinion. Cheers -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: push back on negative articles
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:08:19PM -0400, Karen Sandler wrote: > our press about the new release? I think a free software community run > project is different than a company's product in that we'll always be a > work in progress. It's ok to talk about areas that can be improved for > future, for example. I do think there's a lot of great stuff happening I think that is exactly the problem. It is working for a company vs the outside view. These can have a total mismatch. E.g. I knew a company where the outside view was "really good and professional company", while the inside view was more like "what a freaking mess". The inside thought on the professional reputation was nothing more than "our competitors are fortunately in a bigger mess than us, but that is not going to be forever". In free software, you can see everything that is going on inside. If you can point out loads of things that can be improved, the likely assumption is that things are completely broken. While actually you cannot conclude that; you know how to improve, but you don't know at what level you're currently at. > that I gets overlooked in an effort to zone in on juicy disagreement and > we can probably help with that by making sure we take opportunities to > talk about the good things. For Bruce Byfield I read various of his previous articles. I think most is pretty poorly researched/interpreted. What we could do is to explain our reasoning. Initially I didn't see them, but I did notice a few articles which were written in a totally different style (e.g. GOPW). But I fear we might then reinforce his views if we go too much in a point to point basis. I think we should keep it simple. For the GNOME release notes, we added a short sentence: "Since the last version, 3.2, approximately 1275 people made about 41000 changes to GNOME.". I'd like to make a chart out of such a sentence starting with as old as history as possible. Doing historical analysis is going to cause some issues, because with Git it is pretty easy to give the author. Not sure how often it was used in SVN days. CVS especially might be iffy. I know the CVS->SVN->Git conversions weren't always smooth. So the repository switches should be noted in the graph. Furthermore, I'd like to put the start of the GNOME 3 development in there as well. What I'm after is a chart like Michael Meeks gives about LibreOffice: http://people.gnome.org/~michael/data/2011-06-03-contributors.ods for an example. Note that I'm after all contributors. -- Regards, Olav -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: GNOME Quarterly Report Q2/2012
And the last reminder to please update your section for Q2/2012 here: https://live.gnome.org/GnomeMarketing/QuarterlyReports/2012/Q2 Apart from Web, Documentation and Bugsquad everything is still missing. andre -- mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
