[CentOS-devel] https://blog.centos.org/2020/12/future-is-centos-stream/

On 09 Dec 06:46, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> 
> That is correct .. so, the Red Hat Liaison can use Section B. of the
> Governance to dictate a vote. If the board FORCES the use of this
> clause, then whatever was wanted (in this case by Red Hat) would get
> inacted in its entirety with no real input from the board.
> 
> https://www.centos.org/about/governance/voting/
> 
> The CentOS Board knows this, so we had a dialoge with Red Hat instead.
> Red Hat presented their case and listened to our response.  There was a
> significant back and forth.
> 
> So, no one 'FORCED' the board to do anything.  Red Hat told us what they
> were going to do (what you quoted).  The board then made many
> recommendations in a back and forth negotiation.  The board then made a
> decision.  The decision was reluctant .. but it was unanimous.
> 
> And now this is the way forward.


Johnny,

As this was not dictated by Section B, it seems that the board could
revert this decision by another vote.

I'd like to see this topic re-discussed, based on community feedback. Is
that a possibility?

-- 
 (o-    Julien Pivotto
 //\    Config Management SIG
 V_/_   https://frama.link/cfgmgmt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20201209/7d3bc262/attachment.sig>