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

On 12/24/20 8:49 PM, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS-devel wrote:
>> 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?)

I would encourage to you to read the threads around restructuring SIGs 
from early in 2020. (I'll search the archives for this in a moment, if 
you cannot find it.) There was participation from many of our existing 
SIGs about how the process could/should be improved, and some of those 
changes are already in place.

See also https://git.centos.org/centos/board/issues where there are a 
number of discussion items around updating/fixing/restructuring the 
governance documents to be more in line with both reality, and effective 
means of governing the community. We would appreciate your constructive 
contributions there.

The CentOS governance documents which were written in 2013-2014 were 
largely derived from the Apache governance documents, and that process 
needs to continue in order to craft governance that is more appropriate 
to the size and nature of the CentOS project. Stuff that works at a 300+ 
sub-project Foundation may be a bit cumbersome here.  Community input on 
that process would be very welcome.

In particular, some things that the board has already discussed and 
approved are:

* Wider attendance at Board meetings, starting with SIG leadership being 
invited to the Jan 13th meeting. This was decided in October, and was 
derailed by the aforementioned Elephant. I hope to get that invitation 
sent out this week.

* Even wider attendance at board meetings, after we see how meetings go 
with the SIG leadership in attendance. While many directors wanted this 
to start immediately, we eventually decided on a phased approach.

* Lower bar to SIG creation and membership. This is complicated by two 
things: 1) No new SIGs have been proposed in a while, so we have nothing 
to test this on. 2) The noggin/AAA work that CPE is doing will make SIG 
ACL management easier, and so we're kinda waiting for that.

* Review of all existing governance docs, and the writing of a formal 
governance document, rather than a scattering of several web pages.

Each of these things needs community involvement, if you want your views 
to be represented in that process. And *my* job is to ensure that these 
conversations happen in public, rather than (checks notes ...) inside 
the greenhouse.

It's important to note that, yes, the Red Hat Liaison has (more 
accurately: can have in certain circumstances) a louder voice than most 
other participants. This is something that needs to be stated clearly 
and kept in mind, however much it may annoy some folks. Red Hat is 
paying the bills and so has a louder voice.

So, yeah, we (and, here, I would point largely to Karsten) have been 
actively working and discussing governance issues for the past 2 years. 
Should we have been more open about this? Sure, I think the answer to 
that question is *always* yes. Indeed, I tend to annoy people with my 
pushes for transparency around everything, but, of course, it's a 
balance in a project, like CentOS, where it's largely controlled by a 
single company. This, in turn, is why I see Stream as such a positive 
step - it gives the reins, at least a little more, to you, the community.

That said, I understand and empathize with the frustration and anger 
from the community around this change. But what I have been saying 
consistently since that change is that, as annoyed and frustrated as we 
all are, it is critical that we acknowledge that the change has 
happened, and figure out What's Next. I hope that everyone who wants to 
stay around to help figure that out is able to do this without blaming 
individual board members, calling for resignations, and other unhelpful 
personal attacks.