On 06/07/2014 08:39 AM, Jim Perrin wrote: > > On 06/07/2014 12:00 AM, Kay Williams wrote: >>> On Friday, June 06, 2014 5:44 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: >>> >>> hi, >>> >>> Taking on board the community and environment expansion that is taking >>> place around the CentOS project, the CentOS Board has been considering >>> how best to accomodate these efforts. >>> >>> I'm attaching here a plan put forward by the board towards that aim. >>> >>> Thoughts ? Comments ? >>> >> I am still new to the community and so wish to be careful expressing >> opinions. Certainly, my thoughts will not take fully into account the >> thoughtful work that has been underway in the community in advance of CentOS >> 7. > > Most people are new on here. This list was very low traffic before the > concept of SIG/variants. Don't hold back simply because you feel 'new'. > > Similarly, the folks who speak up are the community voices we hear. We > (the board) can end up with tunnel vision or a skewed perception of how > things are being used if we don't get feedback. We may not agree. We may > do something you don't like, but your opinion WILL be fully heard. > > TL;DR-> Please feel free to speak your mind on the list. Backing up your > points with facts/technical details makes it stronger, no matter how new > you are. > > > >> That said, I hope you will permit a few observations. >> >> The first is that it is very powerful for CentOS to maintain the simple >> message that it has had from the start - 100% compatibility with Red Hat >> Enterprise Linux. This is what allows people to use and trust it for running >> their organizations. The more CentOS feels exactly like "RHEL - but without >> support", the more people understand it and take stock. On the other hand, >> the more it feels different, the more people feel/fear that they should >> consider alternatives - maybe Scientific Linux, maybe non-RHEL >> distributions. They don't want to do this, but stability and dependability >> are key. Their businesses, and their reputations, are at stake. These are >> the exact concerns I heard expressed, unsolicited, from other attendees >> after the CentOS presentation at the Red Hat Summit in May. In particular, >> there was a great deal of confusion about SIGs/variants, what they were, how >> they would be implemented, and whether the introduction of variants would >> mean that CentOS would no longer be compatible with RHEL. Clearly, the goal >> is to maintain compatibility. But even small things that introduce >> differences create FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). >> >> The second is that, at an industry level, even minor inconsistencies, like >> versioning schemes, do more than just raise concerns, they introduce real >> impediments. OEMs test and certify their hardware for specific versions of >> RHEL. ISVs likewise test and certify their applications. Previously they >> could say "this hardware/software has been tested against RHEL 6.3". And >> everyone knew this meant that CentOS 6.3 would work against it as well. But >> with a new versioning scheme, things are less clear. Now, OEMs/ISVs need to >> say "compatible with RHEL 7.2/CentOS 1506". Or maybe they just say RHEL 7.2 >> and users are left to translate this to CentOS versioning. But whether it is >> something OEMS/ISVs, or users do, why force there to be a translation at >> all? >> >> Seems better to work around issues with the RHEL versioning scheme than to >> let something that is already potentially confusing (variants) create >> tangible issues for existing users, and for the broader industry. > Agree, however appending to the 'RHEL' release schedule (7.1.xx) could > be misconstrued as RHEL's z-stream support offering. We were trying to > avoid confusion in that way. Thanks for your input Kay ... I want to agree with everything Jim said. Both about participation by everyone (we want it so we [the board] know what everyone wants and needs us to be). I wanted to post this long explanation only once, so while it is also applicable to answer the second part of your question, I'll link it instead of posting it again: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/010451.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20140607/4061fbe7/attachment-0007.sig>