<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/26/2020 2:48 PM, Mike McGrath
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH8B=OrbL-UU1WeMvZKinz3FCtCDv2EoW1tX9NRjdF=_YTGkAA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 4:12
PM Chris Mair <<a href="mailto:chris@1006.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">chris@1006.org</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH8B=OrbL-UU1WeMvZKinz3FCtCDv2EoW1tX9NRjdF=_YTGkAA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Before you say "Stream", the single most killer argument
against Stream<br>
is that you have broken any trust when you moved the EOL of
CentOS Linux 8<br>
from 2029 to 2021. <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think we lost a lot of trust due to a pretty serious
mix-up about the EOL date announcement, but I don't think it
has erased all the good Red Hat has done and continues to
do.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>This is not a "mix-up!" This is not an "oops, my bad!" Most
large-scale users of CentOS operate in orgs that require some
level of post-mortem analysis on major fiascos like this. If Red
Hat wants to start trying to rebuild ANY goodwill, Step 0 would be
releasing a clear and transparent post-mortem of what exactly
happened here and why. The reasons behind this have changed,
public statements and leaked statements and implications have
contradicted one another, and there's clear evidence of internal
concern. <br>
</p>
<p>Perhaps instead of digging the hole even further over the
holidays, Red Hat can start responding in a healthier way than it
is now.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH8B=OrbL-UU1WeMvZKinz3FCtCDv2EoW1tX9NRjdF=_YTGkAA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Now Red Hat employees jump through hoops to tell us how
great that'll be. What<br>
guerantees that in two year's time you're not going to kill
Stream because "it didn't<br>
provide anything to RH"?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Nothing, we and all companies kill products all the
time. I don't recall this level of outrage over mugshot.
We're taking a big risk with Stream and if it doesn't work
out, we'll make changes there too as we should. It makes no
sense to continue doing something that isn't working out.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Who exactly is the "we" you're referring to? You can't have your
cake and eat it too when it comes to RedHat coming at the CentOS
Board and threatening an override if a decision does not go the
way it wants, knowing full well that this would have far-ranging
effects on all downstream users.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH8B=OrbL-UU1WeMvZKinz3FCtCDv2EoW1tX9NRjdF=_YTGkAA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Somebody already mentioned "fool me once..."...<br>
<br>
I'm still angry and I still cannot believe you appear to be
oblivious to the huge<br>
blunder you made with this incredible EOL shortening. You've
basically killed the<br>
CentOS brand in one single move.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We're not oblivious to it. If this were any other
organization or relationship, we'd help make amends by
giving you your money back. That's just not an option
here. And you can say we killed it all you want, what we've
done is significantly change it. You may not recognize it
anymore but there are many people on this list who we talked
to before the announcement and that we've seen now who are
actually interested in coming on this journey with us.
Thats good.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Lots of people would be interested in CentOS Stream (myself
included). You have killed CentOS Linux (the distribution). You're
equivocating here between the two sets of bits, just like you're
equivocating between Red Hat and the CentOS Project above.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH8B=OrbL-UU1WeMvZKinz3FCtCDv2EoW1tX9NRjdF=_YTGkAA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>I suspect the very trust that you all were putting in Red
Hat to continue to produce CentOS Linux as though it were
actually a 10-year enterprise-grade distribution for
production was part of the problem here. To further
demonstrate that problem, many of the replies I've seen look
as though people did their risk assessments with "we're
relying on Red Hat for our OS" instead of "We're relying on
a community for our OS." I'd imagine some of you are having
very awkward conversations with your management chain about
this. No one using Fedora or WildFly thinks that way.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes. "I can't believe that a VP at Red Hat, of all places, is
being such an a** on the centos-devel list! // Me neither!" is
indeed a "very awkward conversation" to have with one's management
chain. Many of us are quite curious about what "very awkward
conversations" are happening over there.<br>
</p>
<p>Let me make this very clear: NO ONE out there who's responsible
for more than two dozen installs of CentOS is unaware that it's a
rebuild of the upstream product. No one is threatening to sue Red
Hat Inc over this, because you haven't broken our contract; you've
only broken our trust. Our risk assessment was that Red Hat would
behave like responsible adults and the long-time leaders in the
OSS community (we believed) they were, not poison its community
and apparently try to salt the earth to boot.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Please stop stepping on rakes. It's making this bad situation
worse.</p>
<p>-jc<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>