On Saturday, December 26, 2020 6:08 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic <centos at plnet.rs> wrote: > On 12/26/20 1:15 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > 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. > > Even before CentOS was bought by Red Hat, I have seen people who wanted > to join building efforts (mostly?) turned away. CentOS devs were and > stayed exclusive club doing magic behind armored doors. Various reasons > were given, keeping security high, preventing other cloning projects > from getting better, etc. I did not care enough to speak up, especially > since it would not have maid difference. > > That is the reason CloudLinux promised foundation that will keep > complete procedure and ALL tools to clone RHEL accessible, anyone will > be able to recreate their effort (good luck with that unintended result > you created, your shot foot must start to hurt big time) > > Then CentOS Board decided to sell CentOS to Red Hat, same as now there > was no discussion, no debate, community was not asked at all. Since it > was said CentOS Linux will not be killed, and people working hard got > their financial reward, I accepted they did not ask anyone and moved on. > And accepted that any wish, complaint or demand of the community that > was not in the interest of CentOS Board would be simply dismissed, so > why bother raising any when I still got what interested me, free RHEL clone? > > I believe that same sentiment was on minds of majority of CentOS users, > as long as it serves our interests we would allow them to do what ever > they want. I never heard of Springdale and I did not like Oracle as a > company, so CentOS was the only free RHEL clone in my mind. > > So if you are truly asking why no one objected to what CentOS Board > decided without asking anyone in the community, it was pointlessness of > the effort. > > This time around my interest WAS violated, but considering the futility > of the opposition, I will just find me another RHEL clone to use. I am > staying in CentOS community for another 4 years because I have several > CentOS 7 servers, and I might even install 1 more in next few days, to > replace mail CentOS 6 server. 4 years will be enough for it. > > The only reason I am replying on CentOS mailing lists is to keep you Red > Hat employees from claiming victory and making unfounded conclussions > since all opposition decided ti is pointless in arguing with you, you > will not prolong "CentOS Linux 8" life to 2029. I can be stubborn in > that regard when someone tries to play me for a fool (like with > "outdated document/promise" crap). Thank you for writing this. It was much better stated that I could have accomplished. I agree the 3.5 years remaining on CentOS 7 still enough potential to work with. If we still had 3.5 years remaining on CentOS 8 then accepting this change would be much easier. The infrastructure for being a CentOS 7 and 8 downstream is already in place and will remain for CentOS 7. So that CentOS 8 needs to end in 1 year seems arbitary and self-serving when combined with the lack of any board meeting transcript. Mike McGrath seems to be asking us to just look forward and ignore what has taken place. He wants to to know what goals we have. The types of goals I have require knowing what exactly this change means. I can't look forward by ignoring what the change is. I want to work on addressing kernel regressions and kpatch. Previously it was stated the need for the individual patches was for the upstream provider. Since Fedora is an upstream, we got them. Since CentOS is a downstream, we didn't. But with this change it is stated CentOS is going from being the downstream to being the upstream. Yet, the Stream SRPM kernel still doesn't have individual patches. So, we are getting the responsiblity of being the upstream without the respect and tools that should come with it. Wade's platitude Red Hat now cares about the "openness gap" also is not helpful in being able to look forward. Now we have Mike McGrath's revelation that fundamentals silently go out of date. That throws everything out the window. We don't know if CentOS 7's EoL date is set in stone. Maybe at the end of 2021 we will discover the document expired and the real EOL is in the middle or end of 2022. What we are being told is Red Hat was never involved in a conspiracy against the community or being malicious. Instead, we are being told something far worse, that Red Hat is incompetent when it comes to being open and transparent with the community. That internally to Red Hat key concepts went out of date and they lacked the skills to tell anyone when they did. If that is the foundation we are building on now, I don't see any method to go forward with community goals.