8:44 a.m.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 06:14:05PM -0400, Justin W. Flory wrote:
On 04/21/2016 05:10 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
>On 04/21/2016 05:04 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>I can't make tonight's Magazine meeting, but I'm +1 to get this out
>>ASAP. I've moved this article to Pending Review, but I already
>>reviewed it and it looks fine. I added a couple additional links for
>>SEO power.
>>
>>Anything Justin OK's for schedule for this is fine by me, assume
>>+1. :-) And I'll be happy to help with social media, just please leave
>>me an email or IRC message to do so and I'll catch it in the morning.
>
>I'd like to put this up too, but I don't think we've settled the
>question on 32-bit that Dennis raised. Will check again.
>
Do we still want to aim for publishing this tomorrow? In the meeting, we
agreed to publish it Friday, but if it's not ready or the questionable part
can't be edited out, let's definitely hold on this.
The article apparently was left in Scheduled status -- I moved it back
to Pending Review status, and Patrick Uiterwijk kindly stripped it
from the Fedora Planet so it wouldn't confuse anyone. It was out
there for a few hours, though, FYI.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
9:20 a.m.
New subject: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're
retiring 32-bit Images
On 04/22/2016 09:44 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 06:14:05PM -0400, Justin W. Flory wrote:
>> On 04/21/2016 05:10 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: >>> On 04/21/2016 05:04
PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: >>>> I can't make tonight's Magazine
meeting, but I'm +1 to get this out >>>> ASAP. I've moved this
article to Pending Review, but I already >>>> reviewed it and it looks fine.
I added a couple additional links for >>>> SEO power. >>>>
>>>> Anything Justin OK's for schedule for this is fine by me, assume
>>>> +1. :-) And I'll be happy to help with social media, just please
leave >>>> me an email or IRC message to do so and I'll catch it in the
morning. >>> >>> I'd like to put this up too, but I don't think
we've settled the >>> question on 32-bit that Dennis raised. Will check
again. >>> >> >> Do we still want to aim for publishing this
tomorrow? In the meeting, we >> agreed to publish it Friday, but if it's not
ready or the questionable part >> can't be edited out, let's definitely hold
on this. > > The article apparently was left in Scheduled status -- I moved it back
> to
Pending Review status, and Patrick Uiterwijk kindly stripped it > from
the Fedora Planet so it wouldn't confuse anyone. It was out > there for a few
hours, though, FYI. >
Too late phoronix picked it up:
http://phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Fedora-Cloud-32-bit-Dead
Looks like we might as well go ahead with it now.
10:58 a.m.
New subject: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're
retiring 32-bit Images
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 10:20:13AM -0400, Dusty Mabe wrote:
On 04/22/2016 09:44 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 06:14:05PM -0400, Justin W. Flory wrote: >> On
04/21/2016 05:10 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: >>> On 04/21/2016 05:04 PM, Paul W.
Frields wrote: >>>> I can't make tonight's Magazine meeting, but
I'm +1 to get this out >>>> ASAP. I've moved this article to Pending
Review, but I already >>>> reviewed it and it looks fine. I added a couple
additional links for >>>> SEO power. >>>> >>>>
Anything Justin OK's for schedule for this is fine by me, assume >>>> +1.
:-) And I'll be happy to help with social media, just please leave >>>> me
an email or IRC message to do so and I'll catch it in the morning. >>>
>>> I'd like to put this up too, but I don't think we've settled the
>>> question on 32-bit that Dennis raised. Will check again. >>>
>> >> Do we still want to aim for publishing this tomorrow? In the meeting, we
>> agreed to publish it Friday, but if it's not ready or the questionable part
>> can't be edited out, let's definitely hold on this. > > The article
apparently was left in Scheduled status -- I moved it back > to
Pending Review status, and Patrick Uiterwijk kindly stripped it > from the Fedora
Planet so it wouldn't confuse anyone. It was out > there for a few hours, though,
FYI. >
Too late phoronix picked it up:
http://phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Fedora-Cloud-32-bit-Dead
Looks like we might as well go ahead with it now.
Let me be very clear and avoid confusion: :-)
* This post has been pulled back from the Magazine and the Planet. It
will 404 for page visitors.
* 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.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
11:17 a.m.
New subject: PROPOSED Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why
we're retiring 32-bit Images
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
jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
1:10 a.m.
New subject: [Marketing] PROPOSED Re: Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why
we're retiring 32-bit Images
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(a)gmail.com
9:22 a.m.
New subject: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're
retiring 32-bit Images
On 04/22/2016 09:44 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
The article apparently was left in Scheduled status -- I moved it
back
to Pending Review status, and Patrick Uiterwijk kindly stripped it
from the Fedora Planet so it wouldn't confuse anyone. It was out
there for a few hours, though, FYI.
I got at least one ping on Twitter asking if we meant F24 and not F23,
so it was read by a few folks. (On the positive side, we know people are
reading!)
I'm on PTO Monday & Tuesday, but I hope we can finish this discussion
about 32-bit and publish *after* the cloud wg meeting on Wednesday.
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS
jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
2912
days inactive
2925
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Dusty Mabe -
Joe Brockmeier -
Justin W. Flory -
Paul W. Frields