On 09 Dec 07:24, Johnny Hughes 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/ > >> > >> 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. Thank you Johnny. -- (o- Julien Pivotto //\ Config Management SIG V_/_ https://frama.link/cfgmgmt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20201210/0e65e6d2/attachment-0005.sig>