On Friday, January 29, 2021 1:12 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm at mattdm.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 07:06:02PM +0000, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote: > > > Instead, it is clear making free RHEL licenses was a priority. They are > > delivering on new RHEL terms before they make available Stream on gitlab > > and the other changes need for Stream to be a meaningful upstream. > > I don't think you should read too much into that. These things are done by > very different teams, all going as fast as they can. I am sorry, I worded that badly. Also based on Bex's interview that Red Hat is expecting more people to move to free RHEL than to move to Stream. It does not upset me that Red Hat is promoting RHEL with the claim it is a better option over Stream. That is to be expected. I also agree they are working as fast as they can on both fronts. The things that bother me are: (1) Setting a termination date for CentOS 8 independant of how long it takes to make Stream available in a meaningful way (2) Lack of achieving a success criteria for Stream before setting the termination date (3) Indicating the promises of governance was just a document that silently went "out of date" (4) Now talking about the future of Stream 9 like that is something that will not just go silently out of date as well Once we are asked to accept fundamental aspects of the CentOS / Red Hat merging simply go "out of date." Then it seems reasonable to be skeptical of if the 16 RHEL offering or Stream will even continue to exist at all after 4 years. Anything said now today should be considered "out of date" long before Stream 9 is even possibly a thing.