This is an *UNOFFICIAL* non-binding vote to help provide an assessment of the state of the CentOS community and provoke further discussion.

On November 11th (7 weeks ago), the CentOS governance board voted to reduce the life span of CentOS 8 from 10 years to 2 years.

One board member, Karsten Wade, this is part of Red Hat effort to close the openness gap.  He also explained that there is an elephant of which the community has only been shown parts with a flashlight.

The CentOS governance page describe the governing board as being like a greenhouse.

Why is the greenhouse so darken that it can hide an elephant such that over the last 7 weeks it has never been fully shown in the brightness of day?

Part of the problem is the governance board is packed with people that are not active members of the CentOS community and have made no effort to explain the board's actions to the community.

Please vote on each of the following items with +1 (in favor), 0 (sustain), -1 (reject).  If you vote to reject an item, please explain why.

Should Brian Exelbierd be asked to resign from the CentOS governance board?

Should Mike McLean be asked to resign from the CentOS governance board?

Should Carl Trieloff be asked to resign from the CentOS governance board?

Should Rich Bowen be asked to resign from the CentOS governance board?

Is obfuscating the CentOS kernel patches consistent with Red Hat attempting to close the openness gap?

Are you likely to ever assist with Stream if the CentOS 8 End of Life is December 31, 2021?

Would you be more likely to help with Stream if the CentOS 8 End of Life was set to June 30, 2024?

Please keep in mind this vote is *UNOFFICIAL* and only for the purpose of promoting discussion.

Template for responding:

BE resign: [+1|0|-1] [-1 reason]

MM resign: [+1|0|-1] [-1 reason]

CT resign: [+1|0|-1] [-1 reason]

RB resign: [+1|0|-1] [-1 reason]

Obfuscation = Openness: [+1|0|-1] [-1 reason]

EOL 2021: [+1|0|-1] [-1 reason]

EOL 2024: [+1|0|-1] [-1 reason]