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

Re: [DRAFT FOR REVIEW] SERPRO chose Debian GNU / Linux for itsservers and wish to collaborate

Hello, Andreas
Given the further details [1], what are your suggestions?
I intend to spread the word as far as I can.
Debian Project is not a company and negotiated HARD at corporate
management level [2].
With no money. 
But with our values and strenghts in sight of their goals.
The "force vectors" at this kind of government budget negotiations 
and strategical planning are absurd.
Ask mr. Peter Quinn.

The target audience are government decision makers, not so 
tech savvy.
There are 2 main lines in the text.
- Why a big government entity (in LA) chose Debian. 
  (what do they want to accomplish)
- They want to learn how to interact and collaborate with
Debian Project for *mutual* benefit.

It is not a brave guerrilla effort anymore, but a top board strategic
decision, matured for years, that still needs to reach
 all management levels.
THIS is important too.

The text is not exactly following the "inverted pyramid" principle yet.
Instead it is still mostly chronological with a conclusion paragraph.

The government decision makers are not equal to private corporation 
peers, so take this into account.

I will try to swap paragraphs for more inverted pyramid style.

The text needs to be condensed, with less words and same information.

Andre Felipe

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-publicity/2008/08/msg00065.html
[2] Sorry for the silence before, needed to avoid "dark forces". 
I had to *carefully* negotiate  "as a representative" 
of Debian Project. Do not worry. I did not make promises. 
At july very critical meeting, I 
previously contacted a brazilian DD to plan main lines and 
"stand by over the cell phone" counseling.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:28:36 +0200, Andreas Schuldei <andreas@schuldei.org>
> i think it is all quite verbose and too long in general. what is the
> intentded target audience? how far do you want to spread it?
> i would try to simplify and shorten it.

Reply to: