From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Molenda To: overseers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: suggested change to sources.redhat.com page Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 06:08:00 -0000 Message-id: <20001101105239.A10573@shell17.ba.best.com> References: <3A0055F8.1902A1A5@redhat.com> <20001101103628.A6983@shell17.ba.best.com> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg01209.html On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 10:36:28AM -0800, Jason Molenda wrote: > My two cents: Of course it's inappropriate, that's why I wrote > it. Y'all can decide if you want to change it (I'm not going to > mind one way or the other), but it isn't accidental I suppose I could stand to expand on this a bit. I went overly informal on the front sourceware web page to make it clear to users that they were no longer on a corporate site. This was largely in reaction to our earlier pathetic attempts to have a corporate spin on free software PR (I'm thinking of the time around 1994 - 1998). Our cygnus.com site was trying so desperately to be a large corporation that we looked like weak posers, and it was so marketing-drenched that the important technical facts rarely got through it all. On sourceware I wanted to divorce from that corporate presence entirely. The only things marketing had a hand in are the mission statement (I would never have written one, but it wasn't terrible so I didn't mind) and the front page graphic (I think we paid some consultant $1k or so to come up with "red"). Given that historical background, I wanted net.developers to know that they were in a press release-free zone when they were on sourceware, that they wouldn't have to wade through any marketing-style English with little technical credence, that they would not see "headquarter" used as a verb. Maybe this isn't as necessary these days (I haven't looked at redhat.com in a long time), in which case the change that this person sent in is not objectionable - it still maintains the important point of the privacy statement. Jason From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Molenda To: overseers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: suggested change to sources.redhat.com page Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 10:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20001101105239.A10573@shell17.ba.best.com> References: <3A0055F8.1902A1A5@redhat.com> <20001101103628.A6983@shell17.ba.best.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-q4/msg00079.html Message-ID: <20001101105300.0vXMIDjdM0GTT3BqxK-ymO0kg2_3Ni6NlkKA-DsgElg@z> On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 10:36:28AM -0800, Jason Molenda wrote: > My two cents: Of course it's inappropriate, that's why I wrote > it. Y'all can decide if you want to change it (I'm not going to > mind one way or the other), but it isn't accidental I suppose I could stand to expand on this a bit. I went overly informal on the front sourceware web page to make it clear to users that they were no longer on a corporate site. This was largely in reaction to our earlier pathetic attempts to have a corporate spin on free software PR (I'm thinking of the time around 1994 - 1998). Our cygnus.com site was trying so desperately to be a large corporation that we looked like weak posers, and it was so marketing-drenched that the important technical facts rarely got through it all. On sourceware I wanted to divorce from that corporate presence entirely. The only things marketing had a hand in are the mission statement (I would never have written one, but it wasn't terrible so I didn't mind) and the front page graphic (I think we paid some consultant $1k or so to come up with "red"). Given that historical background, I wanted net.developers to know that they were in a press release-free zone when they were on sourceware, that they wouldn't have to wade through any marketing-style English with little technical credence, that they would not see "headquarter" used as a verb. Maybe this isn't as necessary these days (I haven't looked at redhat.com in a long time), in which case the change that this person sent in is not objectionable - it still maintains the important point of the privacy statement. Jason