Add clarification for what we mean by "supported" in the tech docs

[bburt-rh]

Per a recent discussion in the CCS channel in the RH company Slack, it became clear that RH technical docs use the word "supported" in at least two different senses that might lead to confusion for users and customers.

In Slack, @bredamc summed up the issue best when she said that "You also have to be careful about distinguishing between what the product does not support (that is, not technically possible) and what Red Hat does not support (that is, might be technically possible but RH doesn't support you doing it".

We often use "supported/not supported" in our docs for both of these meanings. Unfortunately, users tend to conflate the two meanings. Users will assume that if we say that a feature is "supported" (meaning that "technically, it will work") that RH will also provide technical support for that feature, which, as @jseseCCS noted in the same Slack thread, is not always true.

I am raising this issue to propose that we add a glossary entry for the word "supported" with information about how to use the term in ways that are not potentially confusing to users/customers.

[dfitzmau]

Might be useful: https://access.redhat.com/support/offerings/production/soc

[bergerhoffer]

Discussed at the 31 July SSG meeting. We mainly agreed that we should only be using "supported" to mean something that is supported by Red Hat. We should not use "supported" to mean something that is technically possible with the product, but not supported by Red Hat. We were a little bit divided though on whether it was necessary to clarify a different when saying that something is "unsupported", whether it means unsupported by Red Hat, or just technically impossible. At the very least, we agreed that we should add an entry to state that "supported" should only be used in the context of supported by Red Hat.

But either way, we thought that we should involve the Legal team before moving forward with an update. @bburt-rh to reach out to Legal to start the conversation. We should also get this in front of the support team for review as well.