[CentOS-devel] What should I do in my cluster? CentOS streams dilemma.

On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 8:05 PM redbaronbrowser <
redbaronbrowser at protonmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, December 25, 2020 6:15 PM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 5:27 PM redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel <
> centos-devel at centos.org> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, December 25, 2020 5:05 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic <
>> centos at plnet.rs> wrote:
>>
>> > On 12/25/20 9:02 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 12/25/20 5:24 AM, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Con of using CentOS Stream is it .. packages will be released before
>> > > > getting the same level of QA of RHEL 8 or CentOS 8.
>> > >
>> > > Several Red Hat and CentOS engineers have said that each CentOS Stream
>> > > package will have passed QA before they are published.
>> >
>> > And Red Hat executives said nothing will change for CentOS Linux and
>> > here we are (YMMV) ...
>>
>> Actually, if you read carefully statements made by Karsten Wade and
>> Johnny Hughes, it appears they still believe technically nothing has
>> changed for the majority of users.
>>
>> I would be willing to accept that Stream has the potential to fit the
>> needs of CentOS 8 users.  That isn't the change that bothers me.
>>
>> What bothers me is the level of disrespect for foundational promises made
>> to the community.
>>
>>
>
>> They have been pushing that "a lot of people" were involved in this
>> decision.  That is not the same as being *public*.  That is not the same as
>> being *transparent*.
>>
>> What exactly was said to decide Dec 31, 2021 is the date instead of June
>> 30, 2024 to be in line with CentOS 7?
>>
>> What was Brian "Bex" Exelbierd from the RHEL team doing there?  What did
>> he say?
>>
>> It seems we will never know for sure.  I can *imagine* what was said and
>> I am getting really close to posting my *imaginary* transcript but that
>> also is not a good replacement for the real transcript.
>>
>> It has been reiterated that this was a hard decision for everyone
>> involved.  That might be true.  But how hard is it to keep the promises
>> made about how CentOS Governance would work once joined with Red Hat?  How
>> hard is it to honor the claim there would be a firewall between CentOS and
>> RHEL?
>>
>
> I think the problem is that the document you are quoting is simply just
> out of date.
>
> If you truly wanted to keep that firewall in place.  You, or someone,
> should have complained two years ago when the CentOS infrastructure team
> formally joined the RHEL team as "CPE".  There were no objections to that
> and it was largely seen as a positive move by everyone I've talked to.  If
> that was something so important to you, I think it's on you to pay
> attention and raise those concerns when they were happening.  Significant
> portions of the CentOS team are now under my org which is called the "Linux
> Engineering" team.  We're responsible for RHEL, CentOS, Fedora, CoreOS,
> UBI, and several other Linux related activities at Red Hat.  They're
> excellent engineers and I'm lucky to have them and hope they can find a
> fruitful career in the engineering org.
>
> I agree you have several justifiable concerns, for example, transparency.
> Though even that has recently changed as the board has been posting meeting
> minutes.  It could be better but a step in the right direction. The closer
> joining of the Fedora and CentOS teams (under Linux Engineering) was not in
> any way hidden or kept secret and there were multiple announcements about
> it.  Your concerns are the first negative feedback I've received on that
> team merger.  It would be helpful to take your concerns looking forward to
> what you want to see as opposed to looking back at a period in time in
> CentOS where you clearly weren't aware of what was actually going on.
>
>
> Fool me once shame on Red Hat.  Fool me twice shame on me.
>
> I spoke up before.  I tried to treat Red Hat like they were operating in
> good faith and tried to get things resolved behind the scenes.  I was
> advised to wait and see.  That if an issue came up effecting the CentOS
> community that the RHEL members would recuse themselves from the
> discussion.  The spirit of the firewall would remain.
>
> I was also told that my concerns would be escalated.  You have now
> provided in writting that it was never escalated to you.
>
>
Just to be clear on this point.  I don't have any actual authority that I'm
aware of in the CentOS community.  It would be highly unusual for something
to get escalated to me unless it was related to my associates, budgeting,
or perhaps some obscure legal matter (which to be clear hasn't happened)


> We are now being told once again to wait and see.  AGAIN with the "just
> wait."  That we shouldn't be quick to get mad.  That if was wait then 95%
> of us should be fine.  That if wait then we will see the needs of CentOS
> was kept in the balance.  That if we wait that we won't see a difference
> between CentOS 8 and Stream.  That if we wait we might see changes to RHEL
> to fit our needs but can not be discussed.
>
> But as you just so perfectly put wrote, if we wait then it is on *US* for
> honoring the request to wait.  It is like all objections never happened.
> Your own words is justification to be as *LOUD* and *PUBLIC* with
> objections as possible this time instead of the mistakes of the past of
> honoring the call to "just wait."
>
>
oh, to be clear I was issuing a call to action.  I'm not asking you to just
wait.  I'm not sure who you spoke to nor if they purposefully or
accidentally ignored your concerns.  It sounds like the original CentOS
model wasn't working for you either.


> As to that the "things that are NOT CHANGING" is now a document that
> simply goes out of date?  Really??  You want to go there?!  Maybe tomorrow
> the documents claiming Red Hat is a Linux distribution provider will also
> just go "out of date" and Red Hat will go full blown Caldera/SCO.  We get
> to start 2021 with Red Hat trying to sue Linux vendors and users.  Come
> on.  Leave Red Hat some degree of credability.  Red Hat being a Linux
> distributor isn't something that goes out of date and nether are the
> fundmentals of CentOS.
>
>
I've got years of experience in the community prior to turning
"corporate".  If there's one thing I know, it's that docs get out of date.
You're attributing maliciousness to some firewall thing that was written
who knows how many years ago and everyone I've talked to believed that
firewall was to prevent RHEL employees from helping CentOS Community people
from building CentOS.  Asking one team at Red Hat not to interact with
another team at Red Hat is really weird, the same would go for any two open
source communities...


> But I am willing to accept the spirit of the document might have some
> wiggle room.  However, having Brian "Bex" Exelbierd involved in non-public
> discussions to set the roadmap by gutting the CentOS 8 EoL date is not just
> pushing for wiggle room.  He should have recused himself from the entire
> discussion as having a clear conflict of interest.
>
>
Bex is on the board though.  He's an actual member of the board who has the
special role of representing Red Hat.  We (Red Hat) ask him to take matters
that are important to us to the board.  In the case of the meeting in
question, he brought Chris Wright with him.  That seems to be functioning
exactly as intended.


> But you are right.  It is on me for assuming things were being done in
> good faith.  None of what I said directly to members of CentOS and Red Hat
> actually matters now.  I was a fool for following the advise to just wait.
> I will NEVER make those mistakes again.  I will shout from the roof tops
> about CentOS 8 getting Bex'd.   This time my concerns will count as being
> real.  The threat of the Bex'ing needs to end now.  No more calls for
> waiting.
>
>
This last paragraph is toxic and unprofessional.  Bex did his job as we
asked him to and he performed the exact role on the CentOS Board as the
liaison role was designed to do. AFAIK this doc is still up to date though
I'd have to defer to the board to know for sure:

https://www.centos.org/about/governance/board-responsibilities/#red-hat-liaison-responsibilities

Have a good evening.

      -Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20201225/fe2e6581/attachment.html>