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.
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.
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.
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.
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@gmail.com
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
-
Dusty Mabe -
Joe Brockmeier -
Justin W. Flory -
Paul W. Frields