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

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 9:27 AM aleksander.baranowski via CentOS-devel <
centos-devel at centos.org> wrote:

> 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
>
>
I understand my statement that the CentOS Board "gave up" is harsh (and I
did mean the "you" in my sentence to refer to the Board as a collective),
but it is also true. I intended it to provoke anger. I know Johnny is
personally against all of this, but they all did capitulate to the pressure
from RedHat and failed to act in support of the Community.

I apologize to Johnny personally. I know he feels as we do, but it is a
fact that the Board failed to stick up for our interests.

Now, unless RedHat changes course, and allows the Board to re-vote against
this change, I will look away from RedHat associated products and will urge
everyone I can to do the same.

Sorry again, but this is too much. We've been putting up with RedHat forced
crap for too long with CentOS (e.g. the version number change, which I'm
still pissed about) and now they've gone too far this time.




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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
>


-- 

*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


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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20201209/89e17985/attachment.html>