On 12/24/20 4:59 PM, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote:
I believe what makes something CentOS is the governance.
Red Hat's behavior makes it clear they believe what make something CentOS is who owns the trademark. That they can lie about the governance rules to get whatever they want.
This militant attitude on the part of Red Hat and the fraudulent governance board deserves an equally militant response.
Time fix the openness gap for the kernel SRPM for real instead of blindly following Karsten Wade's empty posturing in the name of openness.
I'm hesitant to dignify these comments with a response, but after some thought, here we go.
First: I presume your comment about "fraudulent governance" refers to Bex's appointment as Red Hat Liaison? I'm not sure, since https://www.centos.org/about/governance/board-responsibilities/#red-hat-liai... defines the process by which a Liaison may be replaced/rotated, and that's the process that was used. If you're talking about something else, I would like to hear more.
I am the first to admit (actually, Karsten has been saying for a while) that the CentOS Governance documents are lacking. There is no central "constitution", but, rather, a handful of web pages and blog posts which define how CentOS Governance works.
This is largely due to two things:
One: CentOS has not ever been a contributor community, in the traditional "Four Opens" sense. And so there was little need to document How It Works.
Two: CentOS has always been a "do-ocracy" - folks just got down to the business of doing the work, rather than talking about it.
The move to Stream increases the urgency to more clearly, publicly, transparently document how CentOS governance works, and how to get involved in that process. This is a major task of mine in the coming months, and I welcome participation from anyone who has knowledge of effective (open source) governance.
Second: I take great exception to your ad hominem attacks on Karsten, and, elsewhere on this list, Bex. It's clear that you don't know either of these people, and have little or no insight into their motives or character.
The fact that some of us are the face of these decisions means that we get to take some of that flak. That's fair and expected. But your personal attacks are unwarranted, and I would ask that you stop. Yeah, I know that I'm responding to a week-old post, and that the conversation have become considerably more productive since then. But this needs to be called out.