On 12/24/20 8:49 PM, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS-devel wrote:
I'm not in the governance game here but the question for you, and others, is this - What sort of governance model can we put in place to accomplish these goals as well as whatever common goals we have going forward? What are our common goals from here? I've seen many technical
issues brought up on the list over the last two weeks that seem solvable to me.
I am sure there will be answers.
But, as far as I see, these questions should have been asked *before* the decision to bury CentOS Linux alive was taken and announced.
(so much for openness and good communication, eh?)
I would encourage to you to read the threads around restructuring SIGs from early in 2020. (I'll search the archives for this in a moment, if you cannot find it.) There was participation from many of our existing SIGs about how the process could/should be improved, and some of those changes are already in place.
See also https://git.centos.org/centos/board/issues where there are a number of discussion items around updating/fixing/restructuring the governance documents to be more in line with both reality, and effective means of governing the community. We would appreciate your constructive contributions there.
The CentOS governance documents which were written in 2013-2014 were largely derived from the Apache governance documents, and that process needs to continue in order to craft governance that is more appropriate to the size and nature of the CentOS project. Stuff that works at a 300+ sub-project Foundation may be a bit cumbersome here. Community input on that process would be very welcome.
In particular, some things that the board has already discussed and approved are:
* Wider attendance at Board meetings, starting with SIG leadership being invited to the Jan 13th meeting. This was decided in October, and was derailed by the aforementioned Elephant. I hope to get that invitation sent out this week.
* Even wider attendance at board meetings, after we see how meetings go with the SIG leadership in attendance. While many directors wanted this to start immediately, we eventually decided on a phased approach.
* Lower bar to SIG creation and membership. This is complicated by two things: 1) No new SIGs have been proposed in a while, so we have nothing to test this on. 2) The noggin/AAA work that CPE is doing will make SIG ACL management easier, and so we're kinda waiting for that.
* Review of all existing governance docs, and the writing of a formal governance document, rather than a scattering of several web pages.
Each of these things needs community involvement, if you want your views to be represented in that process. And *my* job is to ensure that these conversations happen in public, rather than (checks notes ...) inside the greenhouse.
It's important to note that, yes, the Red Hat Liaison has (more accurately: can have in certain circumstances) a louder voice than most other participants. This is something that needs to be stated clearly and kept in mind, however much it may annoy some folks. Red Hat is paying the bills and so has a louder voice.
So, yeah, we (and, here, I would point largely to Karsten) have been actively working and discussing governance issues for the past 2 years. Should we have been more open about this? Sure, I think the answer to that question is *always* yes. Indeed, I tend to annoy people with my pushes for transparency around everything, but, of course, it's a balance in a project, like CentOS, where it's largely controlled by a single company. This, in turn, is why I see Stream as such a positive step - it gives the reins, at least a little more, to you, the community.
That said, I understand and empathize with the frustration and anger from the community around this change. But what I have been saying consistently since that change is that, as annoyed and frustrated as we all are, it is critical that we acknowledge that the change has happened, and figure out What's Next. I hope that everyone who wants to stay around to help figure that out is able to do this without blaming individual board members, calling for resignations, and other unhelpful personal attacks.