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!
Justin W. Flory