[CentOS-devel] Balancing the needs around the RHEL platform

> On 12/24/20 12:01 PM, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote:
>
> > In terms of balancing the needs of the CentOS platform and the
> > openness gap, the CentOS governance board should be focus on if the
> > CentOS Stream kernel SRPM should be of the same quality as Fedora's
> > kernel SRPM.  Or if pre-applying patches in a non-open way is acceptable.
>
> At that point, is the question you're asking whether or not the CentOS
> kernel should be a rebuild of an RHEL kernel SRPM?  These don't seem
> like questions that the CentOS maintainers would have ever even accepted
> for consideration.

In normal times, I wouldn't think of suggesting this.

The year of 2020 is clearly not normal times.

CentOS Stream is a new age.  We are the upstream now.  We should be able to choose the kernel and the quality level of the SRPM.

I believe what makes something CentOS is the governance.

Red Hat's behavior makes it clear they believe what make something CentOS is who owns the trademark.  That they can lie about the governance rules to get whatever they want.

This militant attitude on the part of Red Hat and the fraudulent governance board deserves an equally militant response.

Time fix the openness gap for the kernel SRPM for real instead of blindly following Karsten Wade's empty posturing in the name of openness.

Let's also fix the availability gap.  Karsten Wade vision for CentOS Stream is that 95% is good enough.  For every 1 million users there are 50,000 that have their needs fall through the cracks.  I think as a community we can provide better results than that.

Both openness gap and availability gap are worthy things to fix so let's fix them.  But Karsten Wade isn't offering an effective fix for those issues.