Severity
Minor (nice to have)
Priority
P3 (lowest)
Relevant page(s)
The #214 introduced a change that forbids talking about cost in documentation. This is to the detriment of documenting new Red Hat offerings for which the main differentiator is a different type of payment.
For instance https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-hviegizlv6jpu was introduced by Red Hat to allow for Pay-As-You-Go payment type, where the customer is billed by the hour. This offering is from Red Hat as a vendor and can't change from PAYG to yearly.
For customers in the cloud, it oftentimes makes no sense to purchase the standard yearly RHEL subscription for an ephemeral RHEL instance or a RHEL instance that does not run non-stop. How else you want to convey this difference of the subscription type without saying that it's Pay-As-You-Go?
Similarly, the following subscriptions were introduced with the sole purpose to offer no-cost RHEL subscriptions to eligible parties:
The fact that these subscriptions come at no cost is even mentioned on these places:
Describe the proposed change
Update the style guide to allow talking at least about the type of payment (hourly/PAYG vs yearly). Also ideally allow mentioning that there's no cost associated with certain subscriptions as it's the whole point why they exist.
Why is this change needed?
Without this change I can't clearly articulate in the documentation for conversions to RHEL what subscription options to use in the cloud (PAYG vs yearly).
Additional context
No response
Severity
Minor (nice to have)
Priority
P3 (lowest)
Relevant page(s)
The #214 introduced a change that forbids talking about cost in documentation. This is to the detriment of documenting new Red Hat offerings for which the main differentiator is a different type of payment.
For instance https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-hviegizlv6jpu was introduced by Red Hat to allow for Pay-As-You-Go payment type, where the customer is billed by the hour. This offering is from Red Hat as a vendor and can't change from PAYG to yearly.
For customers in the cloud, it oftentimes makes no sense to purchase the standard yearly RHEL subscription for an ephemeral RHEL instance or a RHEL instance that does not run non-stop. How else you want to convey this difference of the subscription type without saying that it's Pay-As-You-Go?
Similarly, the following subscriptions were introduced with the sole purpose to offer no-cost RHEL subscriptions to eligible parties:
The fact that these subscriptions come at no cost is even mentioned on these places:
Describe the proposed change
Update the style guide to allow talking at least about the type of payment (hourly/PAYG vs yearly). Also ideally allow mentioning that there's no cost associated with certain subscriptions as it's the whole point why they exist.
Why is this change needed?
Without this change I can't clearly articulate in the documentation for conversions to RHEL what subscription options to use in the cloud (PAYG vs yearly).
Additional context
No response