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

Dear Matthew,


I get that you might be upset. Please read that one more time:


I have been doing this for 17 years and CentOS is
basically my life's work. This was (for me personally) a heart
wrenching decision.

As a person who is making Enterprise Linux rebuild and surrounding stack
rebuilds for a few years, I cannot imagine how much this decision meant
for Johnny. 17 years. It's a lot. I also believe that by saying "This
was (for me personally) a heart wrenching decision." he also says that
he made the unambiguous statement about this decision when he was asked.
Saying that "We will not give up, like you did." sounds a little bit too
passive-aggressive IMO. Don't blame passionate technical people like one
on this list on probably higher-ups decision.

I also believe that because of this decision incoming year will bring
some considerable changes in the Enterprise Linux/HPC landscape.

Best,
Alex

On 12/9/20 2:34 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 8:24 AM Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org
> <mailto:johnny at centos.org>> wrote:
> 
>     On 12/9/20 7:14 AM, Julien Pivotto wrote:
>     > 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/
>     <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?
>     >
> 
>     I very much doubt it. I have been doing this for 17 years and CentOS is
>     basically my life's work.  This was (for me personally) a heart
>     wrenching decision.  However, i see no other decision as a possibility.
>      If there was, it would have been made.
> 
>     As I said, there was a back and forth.  We got all the concessions we
>     could get.  It is what it is.  But as I also said, it was a unanimous
>     decision.
> 
> 
> So who on the RedHat side can we plead with? We will not give up, like
> you did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> *Matt Phelps*
> 
> *Information Technology Specialist, Systems Administrator*
> 
> (Computation Facility, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory)
> 
> Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian
> 
> 
> 60 Garden Street | MS 39 | Cambridge, MA 02138
> 
> email: mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu <mailto:mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu>
> 
> 
> cfa.harvard.edu <http://cfa.harvard.edu/>| Facebook
> <http://cfa.harvard.edu/facebook>| Twitter
> <http://cfa.harvard.edu/twitter>| YouTube
> <http://cfa.harvard.edu/youtube>| Newsletter
> <http://cfa.harvard.edu/newsletter>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
>