On 7/24/05, Jon Phillips <jon@...235...> wrote:
Ok, send an msg. to the list when done and I will start hacking on the Press Release.
Apart from being (IMHO) a bit too wordy, the 0.41 press release made a very major error: it spoke about "planning for the 0.42 release", which left many people who read it quickly confused as to which version _this_ is. I saw it reported on some sites as 0.42 apparently because of that.
Also, while a "formal" press release may be necessary for some markets (by the way which exactly?), I don't think we need to write a separate "informal" one as we did last time. For the "informal", why don't we take the "In Brief" section from the release notes and just add the download & complete rel notes links at the end. Trying to rewrite these itemized highlights in prose will lose energy and focus. People like succinct itemized lists and hate marketing-sounding prose.
It's very nice that this time, all our packagers are so prompt. Let's try to minimize the time span between posting the tarball and posting the binaries, this will help make the release more focused. As we are going to package the tarball late today, let's try to make the major packages (rpm, dmg, exe) available by tomorrow's night. Does it sound reasonable?
As this is a really major release, I'd like to ask everyone to do our post-release marketing really energetically this time. E.g. I think we well deserve a Slashdot story; who has experience posting news to Slashdot? I think we should always use the "informal" announcement by default, unless some place specifically requires the "formal" variety. For one thing, I think the guys on the w3c-svg list and in various Linux magazines will be much more interested in the informal announcement with a feature list.