On 04/22/2016 12:17 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On 04/22/2016 11:58 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: >> * I will expect Joe B from the Cloud WG to tell us authoritatively >> through the *marketing* list exactly what should happen next, since >> he (correctly) raised the issue of ensuring zero confusion over >> publishing these articles. >> >> Ideally this should have been settled between Cloud WG and rel-eng >> before an article was proposed. But failing that, we shouldn't >> schedule any Magazine post about changes in deliverables without >> clearly knowing it's decided. (To be fair, that seemed to be the case >> for at least a week, until dgilmore raised an objection.) Better >> communication will fix similar problems in the future. > > Correct. This *was* decided, and then a question was raised. I don't > want to second-guess the second-guessing, because it was > well-intentioned and we're all communicating in like 15 different venues > and ... ugh. Communication is hard, kids. > > I agree with Dusty's post earlier, I think we should stick with the > message that we are doing away with 32-bit cloud images irrespective of > other 32-bit images/etc. We don't at the moment have the resources, or > frankly interest, in doing much with 32-bit x86 cloud images. > > I'm CC'ing Dennis directly in case cloud@ and marketing@ are not on his > "read immediately" list. :-) > > WG folks: Please respond with a +1 or -1. Other votes welcome too. > > Alternate proposals welcomed, but we should move quickly. Happy Friday. > Hi all, following up on this article - will this be ready to publish any time soon or will it still need some more time for decisions? Thanks! -- Cheers, Justin W. Flory jflory7@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
