On 10/19/2018 9:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On Fri Oct 19 00:52:12 UTC 2018 Japheth Cleaver wrote: > > This brings to mind a video I was pointed to not long ago of Brendan > > Conoboy's talk at a Dojo recently: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQsUdLPJW20 > > Hey, that's me! Hi. By the way, Jim Perrin did an updated version of > this talk *today* at CERN in my absence (thanks Jim!). Hopefully the > video will be posted soon. I expect we'll be doing updated versions > of these at Devconf, future Dojos, etc- as things progress. Thanks for responding! > > Conoboy, on the other hand, takes great pains during the speech to > > describe a much more fluid and complex interaction between CentOS > > and its upstream, and puts forth CentOS as a mechanism (perhaps > > the best mechanism) for the winder EL community to contribute > > (something?) back into RHEL's future. He also gives clear signals > > that various Fedora steps have been in directions that Red Hat did > > not want EL necessarily going, and that the simplistic assumptions > > we've commonly been making aren't really correct. > > You might be reading into this more than is there. It's not so much > that things are fluid as it is that they are undefined. There is no > clear, consistent way for a member of the Fedora or CentOS > communities, who create something great, to have that thing make its > way into an update of an existing RHEL major release. Defining that > path, making it possible, would be win for all. *snip* > > Red Hat (and Red-Hat-as-a-sponsor-of-CentOS) might > > do well to clarify just what type of back-and-forth it wants out of > > the wider EL-using community. Does it want direct feedback in the > > form of tickets? Should people form SIGs? Obviously RHEL7 is not > > changing init systems, but where should one talk about the future? > > Man, it breaks my heart when I read things like this. There might be > some historic truth to the above, but it doesn't have to be the > future. The objective I mentioned near the end of the talk has been > posted, but not yet voted on: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Lifecycle_Objective > > The beauty of community is that it can grow and shift according to the > needs of its members. To me it looks like the lifecycle objective may > be a partial answer to how Fedora, RHEL, and CentOS communities can > reach a state of fluidity, a virtuous cycle. The thing that makes it > the most likely to succeed is if members of the Fedora, RHEL, and > CentOS communities work on it together. I hope those reading this who > are interested in that join in. > While I do believe that's important -- especially in helping to prioritize re-basing decisions, if not architectural ones, for updates -- I feel like things are still more open to interpretation for the lead-up *to* a major release. Modularity, software collections, and the like can be used alongside native EL point updates or a more flexible EPEL policy to incorporate new tech, but the impression is that by the time a RHEL beta makes it out, it's already a bit late for a community-suggested major changes. Bug reports? Yes. Design changes? Not as much. Having a stable platform OS design is a key principle for EL users, and Beta->0 seems late in the game. (Nevertheless, the lifecycle stream discussion is absolutely one that does need to be had, and I'm glad that there's that out there!) -jc