Re: Birthday blog post

I realize my earlier comments may not have been clear.

My basic point boils down to: we get one free chance to engage tech press
for an announcement around our birthday. We're close to having something
meaty (CSS Properties), but we aren't there yet to have a big announcement.
A "year in review" that is not positioned to grab press attention (like
this post) is a *great *idea (and it's extremely well executed and
exhaustively researched by Scott--many props). I just want to be careful
about making this a "happy birthday" post that could *accidentally *engage
the press and blow our one-free-announcement card.

Luckily, in my personal opinion it's easy to avoid accidental press pickup
by softening the "birthday" language, and by keeping it long and in depth
(so scratch that point in my earlier comments).

--Alex (the guy who apparently loves parentheticals) Komoroske




On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Julee <julee@adobe.com> wrote:

> Eliot:
>
> As the keeper of the blog, what do you think? We talked last Friday about
> having a birthday post sooner rather than later, but I also see Alex's
> point. Would you please weigh in?
>
> J
> ----------------------------
> julee@adobe.com
> @adobejulee
>
> From: Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>
> Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:44 AM
> To: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
> Cc: Andre Jay Meissner <ameissne@adobe.com>, Scott Rowe <
> scottrowe@google.com>, WebPlatform Public List <public-webplatform@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Birthday blog post
>
> Thanks for writing this up, Scott! Overall it's well written and gives a
> lot of great shoutouts.
>
> A few high-level comments:
>
>    - The post uses first person a few times, which seems a bit informal
>    for an Official Announcement on the Official Blog. (Although it's possible
>    I just have weird preferences--what do others think?)
>    - It's *looooooooong*. It's a great, in-depth overview of progress in
>    the past year, but it might be too much for a general audience to read
>    through.
>    - We had talked in the past about using the birthday timing for a more
>    concerted marketing push. That implies to me that we might want to
>    de-emphasize the one year birthday angle in this post so we can "save it"
>    for a bigger push. One way to do that is to keep this post comprehensive
>    (which is pretty inside baseball and won't be particularly interesting to
>    press), and play down the "OMG it's our birthday" angle just slightly in
>    the intro and title. Does that make sense? Is it a silly idea?
>
> I haven't had a chance to leave specific, low-level comments.
>
> --Alex
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 2:12 AM, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh, now I see there are two mentions - please, remove both of them (one
>> is "Phistuk").
>>
>> Thank you for trying. ;)
>>
>>
>>  ☆*PhistucK*
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:07 PM, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Please, remove my name from the post, I do not need any credit.
>>> (It was pointing to the wrong link anyway)
>>>
>>>
>>> ☆*PhistucK*
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Andre Jay Meissner <ameissne@adobe.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Great work Scott! Minor spelling fix (good old "Doc Sprint" FTW!),
>>>> already in. Wondered if we could add 2-3 more images, could just be a pic
>>>> of the great Amsterdam cake and maybe the Doc Sprint logo or so. Also
>>>> thanks for giving me good reason to finally pimp my user profile a bit! :))
>>>> *Jay
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Von: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>
>>>> Datum: KW 42 | Mittwoch, 16. Oktober 2013 01:29
>>>> An: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
>>>> Betreff: Birthday blog post
>>>> Neu gesendet von: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <
>>>> public-webplatform@w3.org>
>>>> Neu gesendet am: KW 42 | Mittwoch, 16. Oktober 2013 01:30
>>>>
>>>> Blog reviewers, please take a look at this draft:
>>>>
>>>> http://blog.webplatform.org/?p=729&preview=1&_ppp=9c032ed7ef
>>>>
>>>> Append your comments and suggestions to this thread.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> ~Scott
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>