> On Dec 15, 2020, at 10:07 PM, Karsten Wade <kwade at redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 12/15/20 1:03 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Whose fault is that? And, to be honest, I never recall such an expectation ever being vocalized during my tenure @ RedHat (FTR: I was one of the people inside OSAS who drove the CentOS "acquisition" along w/ Carl Trieloff). >> The whole intent back then was "as long as there is going to be this huge community of 'free-loading' users out there, they might as well be under the RHEL/Fedora umbrella, rather than Canonical or elsewhere." I guess somewhere along the line that changed. The issue isn't that the situation changed but rather that up until very recently, promises were still being made and then RedHat backed out of those promises. > > It is actually just as Jason Brooks has spelled out—we needed a slower-moving platform for our layered projects success. CentOS Linux was our best bet in 2013, when projects like OpenStack (RDO) and oVirt were growing and running into pains. > Again, the main concern was that with such layered products, it was deemed better if instead of people using Canonical, they stayed in the RedHat family, and officially having CentOS supported as a RedHat "effort" was the solution. Yes, people were not going to run OpenStack (or OpenShift) on Fedora, nor did it make sense to try to fold those directly into RHEL. CentOS was the "perfect" solution. The goal of SIGs was to determine what layered products, and in what format, people wanted. But the idea that CentOS was intended to be a 50/50 bidirectional codebase is simply rewriting history. The claim that the CentOS community never changed from what it was, and what RedHat *knew* it was, and what RedHat over the years (at least publicly) constantly indicated they were 100% happy about (That CentOS was a community of *users*) just seems like after the fact justification, with the sole intent of placing the blame ON CENTOS.