On 25.12.2020 08:05, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 3:59 PM redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel > <centos-devel at centos.org <mailto:centos-devel at centos.org>> wrote: > > At that point, is the question you're asking whether or not the > CentOS > > kernel should be a rebuild of an RHEL kernel SRPM? These don't seem > > like questions that the CentOS maintainers would have ever even > accepted > > for consideration. > > In normal times, I wouldn't think of suggesting this. > > The year of 2020 is clearly not normal times. > > CentOS Stream is a new age. We are the upstream now. We should be > able to choose the kernel and the quality level of the SRPM. > > I believe what makes something CentOS is the governance. > > Red Hat's behavior makes it clear they believe what make something > CentOS is who owns the trademark. That they can lie about the > governance rules to get whatever they want. > > This militant attitude on the part of Red Hat and the fraudulent > governance board deserves an equally militant response. > > Time fix the openness gap for the kernel SRPM for real instead of > blindly following Karsten Wade's empty posturing in the name of > openness. > > Let's also fix the availability gap. Karsten Wade vision for CentOS > Stream is that 95% is good enough. For every 1 million users there > are 50,000 that have their needs fall through the cracks. I think > as a community we can provide better results than that. > > Both openness gap and availability gap are worthy things to fix so > let's fix them. But Karsten Wade isn't offering an effective fix > for those issues. > > > I agree with you the governance model needs work. You've called out > Karsten a couple of times but it's not clear to me what his role is > going to be for CentOS Stream going forward. That is to say, there are > others also involved in CentOS so you may not want to single him out. > > There are a few boundaries I know Red Hat would like to keep in place. > > 1) The mainline branch *is* RHEL and so anything that gets committed > there must be merged by a Red Hatter. > > 2) No attempting to do another downstream rebuild (for those that > desperately want to contribute to this, there are already other > communities for it and we won't be competing with them) > > 3) We want a robust SIG community, and that includes welcoming things > that Red Hat isn't particularly interested in. So when we say no to > something in the mainline branch, SIGs should be a fairly safe place to > do that where they can use official build infrastructure and > distribution mirrors. I've heard many people talk about special kernel > needs, enabling older hardware, kabi, etc. I'd love to see that done in > a SIG. I also personally think the bar for starting a SIG should be low. An interesting question here. CentOS Linux was free to use. Can you explicitly tell whether these SIGs should be related to paid-only services of RH? Or perhaps I can't see how that can be possible with CentOS Stream. > I'm not in the governance game here but the question for you, and > others, is this - What sort of governance model can we put in place to > accomplish these goals as well as whatever common goals we have going > forward? What are our common goals from here? I've seen many technical > issues brought up on the list over the last two weeks that seem solvable > to me. I am sure there will be answers. But, as far as I see, these questions should have been asked *before* the decision to bury CentOS Linux alive was taken and announced. (so much for openness and good communication, eh?) -- Sincerely, Konstantin Boyandin system administrator (ProWide Labs Ltd. - IPHost Network Monitor)