Johnny Hughes
2020-Dec-08 23:05 UTC
[CentOS] https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/future-is-centos-stream/
On 12/8/20 3:40 PM, Jim Bourne wrote:> On 08/12/2020 15:48, Johnny Hughes wrote: >> I promise you, to the best of my knowledge, IBM had nothing to do with >> this decision.? Red Hat is a distinct unit inside IBM and Red Hat still >> has a CEO, CFO, etc.? Red Hat also maintains a neutral relationship with >> many IBM competitors. So this was not an IBM decision. > > Then WHO made the decision? > > Where was the transparency in this decision by the CentOS Board? > (assuming CentOS still *has* a working independent board) > > Judging from the reactions, I don't believe that anyone saw this coming. > Where was the community consultation on IF this was a good idea.The CentOS Project board has a Red Hat Liaison. That position is documented here: https://www.centos.org/about/governance/board-responsibilities/#red-hat-liaison-responsibilities Also see role of Liaison here (and look at B:): https://www.centos.org/about/governance/voting/ The bottom line is .. a decision of the CentOS Board has been made and we don't have to like it. We do have to do it, regardless of if we like it.
Phelps, Matthew
2020-Dec-08 23:18 UTC
[CentOS] https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/future-is-centos-stream/
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:05 PM Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:> On 12/8/20 3:40 PM, Jim Bourne wrote: > > On 08/12/2020 15:48, Johnny Hughes wrote: > >> I promise you, to the best of my knowledge, IBM had nothing to do with > >> this decision. Red Hat is a distinct unit inside IBM and Red Hat still > >> has a CEO, CFO, etc. Red Hat also maintains a neutral relationship with > >> many IBM competitors. So this was not an IBM decision. > > > > Then WHO made the decision? > > > > Where was the transparency in this decision by the CentOS Board? > > (assuming CentOS still *has* a working independent board) > > > > Judging from the reactions, I don't believe that anyone saw this coming. > > Where was the community consultation on IF this was a good idea. > > The CentOS Project board has a Red Hat Liaison. That position is > documented here: > > > https://www.centos.org/about/governance/board-responsibilities/#red-hat-liaison-responsibilities > > Also see role of Liaison here (and look at B:): > > https://www.centos.org/about/governance/voting/ > > The bottom line is .. a decision of the CentOS Board has been made and > we don't have to like it. We do have to do it, regardless of if we like > it. >The CentOS Board has failed in its *FIRST* four responsibilities.>From that first web page:CentOS Governing Board Responsibilities - Guidance and leadership over the ultimate Project roadmap. - Community outreach. - Maintenance of health and viability of CentOS community. - Maintenance of a healthy and proactive relationship with the Project users and consider those needs and uses in decisions. -- *Matt Phelps* *Information Technology Specialist, Systems Administrator* (Computation Facility, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory) Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian 60 Garden Street | MS 39 | Cambridge, MA 02138 email: mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu cfa.harvard.edu | Facebook <http://cfa.harvard.edu/facebook> | Twitter <http://cfa.harvard.edu/twitter> | YouTube <http://cfa.harvard.edu/youtube> | Newsletter <http://cfa.harvard.edu/newsletter>
Phelps, Matthew
2020-Dec-08 23:29 UTC
[CentOS] https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/future-is-centos-stream/
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:05 PM Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:> On 12/8/20 3:40 PM, Jim Bourne wrote: > > On 08/12/2020 15:48, Johnny Hughes wrote: > >> I promise you, to the best of my knowledge, IBM had nothing to do with > >> this decision. Red Hat is a distinct unit inside IBM and Red Hat still > >> has a CEO, CFO, etc. Red Hat also maintains a neutral relationship with > >> many IBM competitors. So this was not an IBM decision. > > > > Then WHO made the decision? > > > > Where was the transparency in this decision by the CentOS Board? > > (assuming CentOS still *has* a working independent board) > > > > Judging from the reactions, I don't believe that anyone saw this coming. > > Where was the community consultation on IF this was a good idea. > > The CentOS Project board has a Red Hat Liaison. That position is > documented here: > > > https://www.centos.org/about/governance/board-responsibilities/#red-hat-liaison-responsibilities > > Also see role of Liaison here (and look at B:): > > https://www.centos.org/about/governance/voting/ > > The bottom line is .. a decision of the CentOS Board has been made and > we don't have to like it. We do have to do it, regardless of if we like > it. > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >B. The Liaison may, in exceptional circumstances, make a decision on behalf of the Board if a consensus has not been reached on an issue that is deemed time or business critical by Red Hat. So, Johnny, are you saying that the RedHat Liaison, who is Brian Exelbierd ( bexelbie at redhat.com) has forced this decision on the CentOS Board, despite objection from the Board? Brian, please answer this directly, or the so called "Transparency" from RedHat and CentOS we were promised will be clearly shown to be a lie. -- *Matt Phelps* *Information Technology Specialist, Systems Administrator* (Computation Facility, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory) Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian 60 Garden Street | MS 39 | Cambridge, MA 02138 email: mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu cfa.harvard.edu | Facebook <http://cfa.harvard.edu/facebook> | Twitter <http://cfa.harvard.edu/twitter> | YouTube <http://cfa.harvard.edu/youtube> | Newsletter <http://cfa.harvard.edu/newsletter>