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 >