Robert Treat wrote:
> Well said Peter. Josh, can you speak to whether or not there are
> other parties involved in the press release that need us to keep the
> discussion secret? If so then I think we need to respect that desire,
> but I'm not sure if that is actually the case. Peter, given your
> analogy, I think Josh can take the discussion about a press release
> off-list in order to get something of quality put together and then
> post that for public review before sending it out (like someone
> saying I want to code feature x, getting a few guys to help him on
> it, and then posting the results to patches before it gets included).
> Do you see any problems with that?
I don't even have a problem if on occasion the actual text of the press
release, or the name of the external partner, or actual locations or
amounts are not revealed ahead of time. But it's only fair that the
group affected by the press release (say, hackers or www or advocacy or
jdbc) gets to know the general idea and gets to discuss it. Maybe this
press release is that a company wants to sponsor a particular feature,
but then after the press release it turns out that 9 out of 10
developers think the feature is stupid? How does that make us look?
