On 12/15/20 5:23 PM, sankarshan wrote: > > The RHT - CentOS bits happened in 2014. I am certain that the > statements from the CentOS team were made with the best intentions and > were not meant to masquerade anything. Holding the entire phenomenal > CentOS crew (all of whom have spent long years building this community > with love) to a statement made way back in 2014 seems and is a bit > unfair. Realities change and it would be reasonably obvious that > strategic plans determined CentOS-as-upstream-of-RHEL to be the need > of the hour rather than continue with the focus of CentOS as it has > been. > > Please pause for a moment and think about the individuals being > denigrated on the lists. These are not the evil, malicious and > villainous characters they are being demonized as. For what it is > worth we've likely met them in person, shared a joke or a beverage. I > doubt they like the outcome any more than we in the community do. > > Being kind, being respectful and being an ally does not take a lot. > Let's be that while we find how best to preserve our interests, > businesses and energies. I am guessing that you are refering to this part: "Red Had flexed it's muscles, members of CentOS Board will be forever remembered as exchanging reputation and respect for income in Red Hat, and users decided such tactics deserve abandonment of Red Hat." I was very careful how I wrote that part. I know (electronically) members of CentOS team for over a decade, and they all did excellent job and in all these years I had nothing bad to say about them. Even now I do not hate them, wish them ill or harm. BUT, when they accepted that (I assume highly payed) job in Red Hat, in bulk with accepting financing from Red Hat, and who knows what demands from Red Hat management (no one except them is privy to those talks even though it concerned entire CentOS Community) they did so in such a way that Red Hat got effective control over entire CentOS project including trademarks and deciding vote and veto power. i was supportive back then, even argued with those who said it was betrayal, BUT I was NEVER ASKED before the decision was made if that should have been done. There was no public vote made or given time to opposition to make a case against such move. CentOS project belonged to those who control it (and poured A LOT of time and effort into keeping it afloat), and they made a business decision to cash in their expertise. And only reason that only few held that against them was a promise CentOS project will keep releasing free RHEL clone. Since it did not hurt the interest of community, good for them, they got stable jobs which they earned. It was a win-win, just lets not say they decide it from some altruism, that ever happened. And now we are in this point in time where Red Hat used legal frame CentOS Borad from 2014 enabled, to blackmail RH employees currently serving as CentOS Board to hurt CentOS community. It was done without any warning to community, and Board members voted "for" even though they were initialy against it, so that means that other factors were at play beside their better judgment and wishes. Only thing it could be, since RH employs them, is implied of perceived threat to their jobs inside RH if they anger RH higher ups by refusing to vote "for" and force RH to overrule them which would have been a true PR nightmare for Red Hat. I am even guessing that compromise was made for C7 to be supported until EOL because RH's weak story about not enough resources could not be applied to C7 which is in maintenance mode and does not have many packages that need rebuilding. I am more stubborn then a mule, and I, personally, would not have accepted this ultimatum by RH, I would have rather resigned then be remembered as a person to vote "for" killing the main reason for existence of CentOS project. Damn the consequences. >From that standpoint I hope that they see the compensation for this decision as enough, because there is no doubt they will be remembered as Board members that closed most popular RHEL clone for 15+ years. DOes not matter if history views it positively or negatively, IT/Linux history will remember their names and every few years someone will comment on their decision. But I still do not judge them for doing what they think was the right decision, it is important that THEY view their conscience as clean, because I fear they will be a constant target for those disgruntled, in the years and decades to come. They chose to vote "fo"r, they did their math, argued between them selves, reached consensus and then voted unanimously, so they new what they are doing and calculated-in consequences. -- Ljubomir Ljubojevic (Love is in the Air) PL Computers Serbia, Europe StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant