On Friday, December 25, 2020 6:15 PM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 5:27 PM redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel <centos-devel at centos.org> wrote: > >> On Friday, December 25, 2020 5:05 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic <centos at plnet.rs> wrote: >> >>> On 12/25/20 9:02 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: >>> >>> > On 12/25/20 5:24 AM, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote: >>> > >>> > > Con of using CentOS Stream is it .. packages will be released before >>> > > getting the same level of QA of RHEL 8 or CentOS 8. >>> > >>> > Several Red Hat and CentOS engineers have said that each CentOS Stream >>> > package will have passed QA before they are published. >>> >>> And Red Hat executives said nothing will change for CentOS Linux and >>> here we are (YMMV) ... >> >> Actually, if you read carefully statements made by Karsten Wade and Johnny Hughes, it appears they still believe technically nothing has changed for the majority of users. >> >> I would be willing to accept that Stream has the potential to fit the needs of CentOS 8 users. That isn't the change that bothers me. >> >> What bothers me is the level of disrespect for foundational promises made to the community. > >> They have been pushing that "a lot of people" were involved in this decision. That is not the same as being *public*. That is not the same as being *transparent*. >> >> What exactly was said to decide Dec 31, 2021 is the date instead of June 30, 2024 to be in line with CentOS 7? >> >> What was Brian "Bex" Exelbierd from the RHEL team doing there? What did he say? >> >> It seems we will never know for sure. I can *imagine* what was said and I am getting really close to posting my *imaginary* transcript but that also is not a good replacement for the real transcript. >> >> It has been reiterated that this was a hard decision for everyone involved. That might be true. But how hard is it to keep the promises made about how CentOS Governance would work once joined with Red Hat? How hard is it to honor the claim there would be a firewall between CentOS and RHEL? > > I think the problem is that the document you are quoting is simply just out of date. > > If you truly wanted to keep that firewall in place. You, or someone, should have complained two years ago when the CentOS infrastructure team formally joined the RHEL team as "CPE". There were no objections to that and it was largely seen as a positive move by everyone I've talked to. If that was something so important to you, I think it's on you to pay attention and raise those concerns when they were happening. Significant portions of the CentOS team are now under my org which is called the "Linux Engineering" team. We're responsible for RHEL, CentOS, Fedora, CoreOS, UBI, and several other Linux related activities at Red Hat. They're excellent engineers and I'm lucky to have them and hope they can find a fruitful career in the engineering org. > > I agree you have several justifiable concerns, for example, transparency. Though even that has recently changed as the board has been posting meeting minutes. It could be better but a step in the right direction. The closer joining of the Fedora and CentOS teams (under Linux Engineering) was not in any way hidden or kept secret and there were multiple announcements about it. Your concerns are the first negative feedback I've received on that team merger. It would be helpful to take your concerns looking forward to what you want to see as opposed to looking back at a period in time in CentOS where you clearly weren't aware of what was actually going on. Fool me once shame on Red Hat. Fool me twice shame on me. I spoke up before. I tried to treat Red Hat like they were operating in good faith and tried to get things resolved behind the scenes. I was advised to wait and see. That if an issue came up effecting the CentOS community that the RHEL members would recuse themselves from the discussion. The spirit of the firewall would remain. I was also told that my concerns would be escalated. You have now provided in writting that it was never escalated to you. We are now being told once again to wait and see. AGAIN with the "just wait." That we shouldn't be quick to get mad. That if was wait then 95% of us should be fine. That if wait then we will see the needs of CentOS was kept in the balance. That if we wait that we won't see a difference between CentOS 8 and Stream. That if we wait we might see changes to RHEL to fit our needs but can not be discussed. But as you just so perfectly put wrote, if we wait then it is on *US* for honoring the request to wait. It is like all objections never happened. Your own words is justification to be as *LOUD* and *PUBLIC* with objections as possible this time instead of the mistakes of the past of honoring the call to "just wait." As to that the "things that are NOT CHANGING" is now a document that simply goes out of date? Really?? You want to go there?! Maybe tomorrow the documents claiming Red Hat is a Linux distribution provider will also just go "out of date" and Red Hat will go full blown Caldera/SCO. We get to start 2021 with Red Hat trying to sue Linux vendors and users. Come on. Leave Red Hat some degree of credability. Red Hat being a Linux distributor isn't something that goes out of date and nether are the fundmentals of CentOS. But I am willing to accept the spirit of the document might have some wiggle room. However, having Brian "Bex" Exelbierd involved in non-public discussions to set the roadmap by gutting the CentOS 8 EoL date is not just pushing for wiggle room. He should have recused himself from the entire discussion as having a clear conflict of interest. But you are right. It is on me for assuming things were being done in good faith. None of what I said directly to members of CentOS and Red Hat actually matters now. I was a fool for following the advise to just wait. I will NEVER make those mistakes again. I will shout from the roof tops about CentOS 8 getting Bex'd. This time my concerns will count as being real. The threat of the Bex'ing needs to end now. No more calls for waiting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20201226/6ca7f710/attachment-0005.html>