Please review the draft for March's report

[Chris Lamb]

Daniel Shahaf wrote:

> It's not our business to fix their press release, of course, but if we
> link to something, we should ensure _our_ readers will be able to tell
> what we link to and why it's significant.  If their press release doesn't
> explain that, then we could explain those bits ourselves, or link to
> a more technical write-up [...]

The Linux Foundation's press release is indeed rather content-free,
even after we factor in that they have a different target audience in
mind.

If you have an alternative phrasing (or links to a more-technical
write-up), please feel free to go ahead and commit that; I'm not
wedded to the current text, and would prefer that these reports were
less of a solo effort. Another solution you may wish to explore is
truncating or otherwise shortened this entry — that would have the
effect of deprioritising it, thus making the lack of hard/technical
detail less of a problem when considered in context.


Regards,

--
      o
    ⬋   ⬊      Chris Lamb
   o     o     reproducible-builds.org 💠
    ⬊   ⬋
      o