Hi Charlie. On 12/31/2010 06:54 PM, Charlie Brady wrote: > Please explain the logic. Why does the volume imply that CentOS > development must be closed? Why does the volume imply that there cannot be > alphas or betas? Do Fedora and Debian not also have large volume? The development for CentOS is no more open or closed than anything that can and should be reasonably expected from what the input to the process and the output from the process is. Also think about exactly 'what' the testing could and should entail, how it might run w.r.t timescales and what the feedback loop should be. Feel free to elaborate and quantify that. eg. Having been on the QA team for 'years', how many patches did you send through ? > Are there any plans to tackle the human bottleneck issues within the > CentOS development process? Absolutely, but tackle them by doing the right thing - and finding people who both (a) know what they are doing, (b) understand the CentOS process and (c) are able to bring a certain trust level to the community of users. > It seems to me that the rebranding process did not start during the > upstream beta period. If so, was that a conscious decision by the CentOS > team? The aim was to focus people's attention to the upstream beta, better product and that loop etc. We could have started earlier, sure. But now that we have started 2 months back and your own contribution status stays at nil, why are you interested ? - KB