CentOS - Dec 2020 - 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>

On 12/8/20 5:29 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 
No .. I am saying that the CentOS Board knows that option exists, and
therefore we know that IF it is invoked, we get no say in what will
happen for that decision.  I am saying that the CentOS Board therefore
made a hard decision given the situation we were in.