[CentOS-devel] Balancing the needs around the RHEL platform

Tue Dec 29 06:32:52 UTC 2020
redbaronbrowser <redbaronbrowser at protonmail.com>

On Monday, December 28, 2020 11:17 PM, Mark Mielke <mark.mielke at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 1:09 PM Laurențiu Păncescu
> lpancescu at centosproject.org wrote:
> > I think the best way forward for everyone is to accept what happened and
> > deal pragmatically with the consequences for their own organization.
> Yes.
> I think it's important for a lot of the concerns to be captured in
> Internet history, so that we can learn from it.

We tried that.  That is what resulted in the apology for Red Hat Psyche and the promise that what is happenning now will never happen.  It took 2 years for things to fully settle out.

> But, it seems we are far past the point of changing anything on the
> Red Hat side of things. As you and others have mentioned - the
> wording used suggests this is all final.

Then they should have announced the full elephant instead of talking about pointing flash lights at it.  It seems like even Red Hat is not sure what the full elephant is yet because they expected everyone to silently give them whatever they wanted.

If we really are to the point that the best Red Hat has to offer in "balancing" the needs of the community is as things stand, there is no point in there being a CentOS community.  We have Debian, we have OpenSUSE, we have plenty of other communities that show greater respect than this.

We have been given a governance board that is packed with Red Hat employees that are *NOT* members of the CentOS community.  That is not a balancing of needs.

We have been told to expect 5 year life cycles for Stream but for CentOS 8 we get only 2 years.  That is not a balancing of needs.  If we are going from 10 years to 5 years then continue with CentOS 8 til 2024.  If we accept only 2 years for CentOS 8 then we don't deserve to expect 5 years from Stream either.  There is no balancing of needs in this action by Red Hat.

We have been told Red Hat is serious about closing the openness gap so the community can contribute as an upstream.  But then still leave the kernel SRPM of Stream in an obfuscated state.  This hinders the ability of the community to take on the roles of an upstream.  The community can't meaningfully contribute to kernel patch troubleshooting and application of patches via kpatch when things remain like this.  Again, there is no balancing of the needs in this action by Red Hat.

Accepting this CATHEDRAL move is accepting Red Hat is unredeemable when it comes to working with the community.  It is a complete rejection of the BIZZAR to have meaningful SIGs and other contributions.

According to O'Rielly, the subject that an elephant best fits with is Hadoop.  It is fitting for describing what can be accomplished by  having open and fair communication can have with a community.

What Red Hat is doing so far isn't about showing us an elephant and treating us like Hadoop.  It is more like showing us a turtle with an trunk attached and treating us like powershell.

They simply can not get the results they want for the next two years by repeating the mistakes of Red Hat Psyche.  As fans of Red Hat and CentOS, we should feel the need to let them know that.