[CentOS-devel] Missing security updates

Fri Jul 23 11:37:18 UTC 2010
Dag Wieers <dag at wieers.com>

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, R P Herrold wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Charlie Brady wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Charlie Brady wrote:
>>> timeliness *appears* not to be important to the CentOS
>>> project, hence this discussion.
>> Not intended to be a smear - please see timeline @
>> http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4386
> One person comes to mind who stomped off the project very
> publicly, and will not be invited back.  Their choice.  I
> would not try to stop them, and will respect my relationship
> with the others who comprise the core of the CentOS process.
> We may not agree on all matters, but I think that those who
> remain there all agree that we will celebrate success
> publicly, and address failures privately


If you are talking about me, you are twisting history quite a bit. It's 
one thing to fiercly stand behind your herd, but it's another if this goes 
against the goals of the project and benefits/expectations of its users.

Case in point, the core is reduced to maybe 4 active people, there is no 
governance model, there is no transparancy, internally important matters 
are minimized and/or delayed (for years!), a lot of (active) people in the 
community are tired of the (lack of) progress but have no means to do 
anything about it, I can go on...

The statement that there is a lack of people that want to actively 
contribute may be true, but if you cannot engage the people that show a 
willingness to do so, if there is no transparancy and there is no active 
process for people to contribute, then it's very painful for those people 
that do want to contribute.

If people are not allowed to speak up (or are being excommunicated if they 
do) then you are alienating all people that want to actively contribute 
(even in the core team). This thread is yet another example of that same 
recurring theme.

And that is exactly what happened to me inside the core team. There was a 
clear distrust and important matters were _not_ addressed. Those same 
items are still unaddressed. If I don't feel I am useful in the core team, 
if I cannot make a difference, if I cannot fix the things that matter to 
the community, it is my duty to quit. At least it gives the opportunity to 
someone else to try and do better. If I don't stand behind the project, I 
cannot stay in a core team in clear conscience and keep my opinions to 
myself in return for personal benefits. What you portret as a weakness, I 
consider a great strength.

The fact that you pretend I want to be invited back is laughable, but 
fits nicely into the excommunicated role you have me play, I guess :-)

PS As a reminder, my resignation letter summarized some of the pain 


which are still valid today. If I will be known as the guy who couldn't 
make a blind man see, then so be it ;-)

Kind regards,
--   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]