On Fri, 18 Feb 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 2/18/2011 10:47 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
It's been almost 2 years I left the CentOS team because I couldn't defend the CentOS project anymore. The only thing solved was the ownership of the CentOS name and domains, but all the other problems regarding code transparency, trust-issues, missing or delayed updates, governance, adding more people for redundancy, where the considerable ad income is going, etc...
But I am preaching to the wrong choir, because you obviously know all this.
http://dag.wieers.com/blog/leaving-centos-team-not-centos-communityAt least with your involvement I am confident CentOS 4.9 will not be as late as CentOS 4.8 was. (And this time I am not being cynical)
Have you attempted the same involvement with SL? Or considered building a non-scientific respin of their version? (Basically backing out their changes...). Given the economic environment, maybe it would be good if they had some volunteer backup.
Hi Les,
I recently became a dad, am renovating a house, am involved in a few Open Source projects already, so the little time I have left I would like to spend wisely ;-) Although I would support any initiative to bring more competition into the RHEL rebuild market.
My opinion has always been that more competition is good for CentOS and for its users, compare the current situation with when Whitebox and Tao Linux were still around and you could feel the positive influence of the competition (the race to be the first to release was one of them).
That's why more transparency from CentOS regarding to buildtools, changes and processes (including an open QA process) would be a much better approach in the long run for everyone involved than a closed and protected process with less than a handful of people at the center and the large community in the dark.
Although I do understand that some people prefer to keep the control and power over things, I just do not agree with it.