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 <javascript:;> | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/