+1 On Friday, 22 April 2016, Joe Brockmeier <j...@redhat.com> 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. > > > -- > Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS > j...@redhat.com <javascript:;> | http://community.redhat.com/ > Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/ > >
-- marketing mailing list marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
