Thread: Press Release Party
Folks, I'm going to be preparing a press release for the PostgreSQL project and a corporate sponsor. Since we're public, we'll be doing any editorial on the release on private e-mail. Who's interested in trying out your copywriting skills? -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Peter, > I think the PostgreSQL project should be informed -- that means in > public -- about the general contents before a press release is made in > its name. Otherwise you're claiming something in the name of everybody > that no one has ever heard of before, which seems kind of bogus. No can do. A press release only "works" if it has impact, which means, among other things, keeping the contents relatively under wraps until it's officially launched. So if you want to give feedback, pitch in -- this is your official opportunity. Not everybody is involved in every patch that gets added to the code; not everyone will be involved in every press release. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > I'm going to be preparing a press release for the PostgreSQL project > and a corporate sponsor. Since we're public, we'll be doing any > editorial on the release on private e-mail. Who's interested in > trying out your copywriting skills? I think the PostgreSQL project should be informed -- that means in public -- about the general contents before a press release is made in its name. Otherwise you're claiming something in the name of everybody that no one has ever heard of before, which seems kind of bogus.
Josh Berkus wrote: > No can do. A press release only "works" if it has impact, which > means, among other things, keeping the contents relatively under > wraps until it's officially launched. Another feature of a press release is that those in whose name it is made know what they are committing to. If only, say, three people know what is going to be announced, then you can make the announcement in the name of those three people, but not in the name of "the PostgreSQL project". Otherwise you're just lying. > Not everybody is involved in every patch that gets added to the code; > not everyone will be involved in every press release. You're wrong. Everyone has a chance to review every patch and discuss every patch in public before it is released.
On Fri, 2004-04-23 at 02:00, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > No can do. A press release only "works" if it has impact, which
> > means, among other things, keeping the contents relatively under
> > wraps until it's officially launched.
>
> Another feature of a press release is that those in whose name it is
> made know what they are committing to. If only, say, three people know
> what is going to be announced, then you can make the announcement in
> the name of those three people, but not in the name of "the PostgreSQL
> project". Otherwise you're just lying.
The core team has always been authorized to speak on behalf of the
project without having to clear it through public lists. Josh is a
member of the core team, and as such should be given the same of
flexibility and trust to speak on the projects behalf when appropriate.
If you have an issue with the dynamics of the core team acting in this
regard, then let's have that discussion.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Peter, > Another feature of a press release is that those in whose name it is > made know what they are committing to. If only, say, three people know > what is going to be announced, then you can make the announcement in > the name of those three people, but not in the name of "the PostgreSQL > project". Otherwise you're just lying. Well, no, actually. You've never worked with the PR department of a real company, have you? > > Not everybody is involved in every patch that gets added to the code; > > not everyone will be involved in every press release. > > You're wrong. Everyone has a chance to review every patch and discuss > every patch in public before it is released. Precisely. "has a chance". This is that chance, so either participate or don't. And if you choose not to participate, then don't complain later that you didn't get your say. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > Well, no, actually. You've never worked with the PR department of > a real company, have you? The difference is that we're not a real company. That makes us special. You're destroying that.
Robert Treat wrote: > The core team has always been authorized to speak on behalf of the > project without having to clear it through public lists. The core team has never issued a press release without public discussion. The core team can issue a press release in the name of the core team. Everything else needs to be discussed first.
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > > Well, no, actually. You've never worked with the PR department of > > a real company, have you? > > The difference is that we're not a real company. That makes us special. > You're destroying that. How? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Fri, 2004-04-23 at 17:40, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > The core team has always been authorized to speak on behalf of the
> > project without having to clear it through public lists.
>
> The core team has never issued a press release without public
> discussion. The core team can issue a press release in the name of the
> core team. Everything else needs to be discussed first.
>
Whats the difference between a press release and a reporter calling up
Bruce for an interview?
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote: > Whats the difference between a press release and a reporter calling > up Bruce for an interview? When Bruce does an interview it says "interview with Bruce Momjian" and not "interview with the PostgreSQL project". Moreover, when a press release is issued it states the intentions of a party in a very formal and official way. In an interview it's relatively clear that the person only offers his own opinions.
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > The difference is that we're not a real company. That makes us > > special. You're destroying that. > > How? By trying to apply the ways one supposedly runs a company to an open-source project. These sort of arguments are old and boring: Some people claimed that your source code must be secret or you can't succeed. Some claimed that your product plan must be secret or you can't succeed. Some think that security issues must be kept secret or there will be a catastrophe. Or some people were wondering whether promotion activities should be kept secret for fear of someone spying. They were all wrong, and I feel sorry for the people who think that press releases must be secret or they will be worthless.
On Friday 23 April 2004 18:15, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > Whats the difference between a press release and a reporter calling
> > up Bruce for an interview?
>
> When Bruce does an interview it says "interview with Bruce Momjian" and
> not "interview with the PostgreSQL project". Moreover, when a press
> release is issued it states the intentions of a party in a very formal
> and official way. In an interview it's relatively clear that the
> person only offers his own opinions.
You mean the interviews where they say they are talking to "Bruce Momjian of
the PostgreSQL project" and he says things like "we hope to have X feature in
the next release" or "we have seen a number of new users in Y country". If
you don't think people read those interviews and see the intentions of our
project then I think you're fooling yourself.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Friday 23 April 2004 18:22, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > The difference is that we're not a real company. That makes us
> > > special. You're destroying that.
> >
> > How?
>
> By trying to apply the ways one supposedly runs a company to an
> open-source project. These sort of arguments are old and boring: Some
> people claimed that your source code must be secret or you can't
> succeed. Some claimed that your product plan must be secret or you
> can't succeed. Some think that security issues must be kept secret or
> there will be a catastrophe. Or some people were wondering whether
> promotion activities should be kept secret for fear of someone spying.
> They were all wrong, and I feel sorry for the people who think that
> press releases must be secret or they will be worthless.
>
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?
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
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?
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > 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? Who cares? If the resultant patch isn't considered acceptable by the community, it just won't get applied *shrug* ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > 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? > > Who cares? If the resultant patch isn't considered acceptable by the > community, it just won't get applied *shrug* I think the general public would care if we make press releases about features that don't end up happening. Plus, this could become a very popular method for companies to get free advertisement: claim you will sponsor X, get someone to make a PostgreSQL press release about it, and later, well, the X gets kind of lost somewhere.
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > 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? > > > > Who cares? If the resultant patch isn't considered acceptable by the > > community, it just won't get applied *shrug* > > I think the general public would care if we make press releases about > features that don't end up happening. Plus, this could become a very > popular method for companies to get free advertisement: claim you will > sponsor X, get someone to make a PostgreSQL press release about it, and > later, well, the X gets kind of lost somewhere. 'k, I think Josh just may have a weeeeee bit better judgement in that, at least in whom he's going to work for ... and, quite frankly, that sort of think would give more bad-karma to the company in question then gain ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Robert, >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? We can do that for *this* particular release, as it happens, mostly becuase this news has been leaked already. But that won't necessarily be true with all, or even most, releases -- most will require being off-list until they are sent out to PRWeb. I think, though, that there are a few issues here, one of which is that press releases are *not* like patches. A patch gets held back, sometimes indefinitely, if it's not sufficient quality. A press release often needs to go out by a specific date, whether or not it's perfect -- the target is producing the best release that can go out on that date, rather than meeting a particular standard. News which is not timely is not news at all. As a result, people who decide not to help or give feedback during writing the release, but reserve the right to criticize it the day it's supposed to go out, make it very frustrating and difficult for people trying to generate PR for the project to get anything done. Not that the same isn't true of patches, but that's not my area of responsibility. Certainly I'm not going to start running press releases past the Hackers list. That's what this list is for. And, Peter, all PR *does* get run past Core -- often including PR by external companies which focuses on PostgreSQL. As to why releases need to be keep off-line? As part of a successful PR campaign for any organization, you cultivate personal relationships with individual reporters. This relationship usually includes feeding them news a little bit ahead of the wire, and in return you get better coverage for that news. But, if the release is available on a public mailing list with public archives days before it's released, you lose all control over who gets what when. The other reason is that releases, and quotes, can get pulled by external parties at the last minute. If the release text has already appeared on a public mailing list, it's all too possible that some news source would have already grabbed it and posted it somewhere. The results would range from embarassing to finding ourselves in court. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Robert Treat wrote: > > The core team has always been authorized to speak on behalf of the > > project without having to clear it through public lists. > > The core team has never issued a press release without public > discussion. The core team can issue a press release in the name of the > core team. Everything else needs to be discussed first. Actually, you are wrong here ... there have been several times where core has participated in the creation of a press release without discussing it in public first ... first one would probably be back in the Great Bridge days ... A Press Release would be a dud if everyone know about it before it was released ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > Actually, you are wrong here ... there have been several times where > core has participated in the creation of a press release without > discussing it in public first ... first one would probably be back in > the Great Bridge days ... The participation in the creation of a press release is not the same thing as issuing a press release in the name of the PostgreSQL project. > A Press Release would be a dud if everyone know about it before it > was released No, the purpose of a press release is to inform a wider public that does not normally read the mailing lists. The purpose is not to surprise your own community.
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > Actually, you are wrong here ... there have been several times where > > core has participated in the creation of a press release without > > discussing it in public first ... first one would probably be back in > > the Great Bridge days ... > > The participation in the creation of a press release is not the same > thing as issuing a press release in the name of the PostgreSQL project. 'k, then we are talking two different things here ... to the best of my knowledge, Josh is working on a press release for a company who is sponsoring development work on features in PostgreSQL ... the press release is in the name of that company, not the project ... Josh, do I have this backwards? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664