[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian redesign



Hello,
Good questions.
And could be added: what values Debian Project wants to be known for?
Debian "products" outcomes have solid values and worth. It should be
easier to communicate with truth at your side.

The suitable place for these discussions is the debian-publicity list
[0].
There are qualified and or interested people regarding these subjects.
Even so, the Pixel Girl proposal is broad in scope and debian-www and
debian-desktop teams should also be involved.
This will involve a good amount of teams work coordination and
communication.
Regards.
Andre Felipe Machado

[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-publicity/
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-desktop/


Em Dom, 2009-08-02 às 10:14 +0200, Serafeim Zanikolas escreveu:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 04:51:22PM +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote [edited]:
> > You can take a look at her presentation at:
> >  https://penta.debconf.org/dc9_schedule/attachments/112_debian_redesign.tar.gz
> > 
> > What do you think? :D
> 
> WRT the pics of the campaign, I find the ensuing discussion rather
> unproductive without an agreed upon set of objectives and the tradeoffs
> involved, eg.
> 
> - What's the relative priority of the different groups of people we're aiming
>   at? DDs and potential new contributors? corporate users? individual users?
>   In other words, should the campaign focus in say attracting more corporate
>   users, or more hackers applying for membership? (pixegirl says people
>   outside the organisation, some debian folks disagree)
> 
> - Do we want the campaign to be contentious (I'd think not) or as far as
>   possibly inoffensive (and again, these perceptions vary among different
>   kinds of groups)?
> 
> Seems like many debian folks find pixelgirl's work of high quality but not
> meeting the desirable tradeoffs. Has there been an agreement or even a
> discussion about these tradeoffs in any debian list?
> 
> -S
> 
> 


Reply to: