On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 7:32 PM Johnny Hughes <johnny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/8/20 5:29 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 6:05 PM Johnny Hughes <johnny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/8/20 3:40 PM, Jim Bourne wrote:
> >>> On 08/12/2020 15:48, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >>>> I promise you, to the best of my knowledge, IBM had nothing to do with
> >>>> this decision. Red Hat is a distinct unit inside IBM and Red Hat
> still
> >>>> has a CEO, CFO, etc. Red Hat also maintains a neutral relationship
> with
> >>>> many IBM competitors. So this was not an IBM decision.
> >>>
> >>> Then WHO made the decision?
> >>>
> >>> Where was the transparency in this decision by the CentOS Board?
> >>> (assuming CentOS still *has* a working independent board)
> >>>
> >>> Judging from the reactions, I don't believe that anyone saw this
> coming.
> >>> Where was the community consultation on IF this was a good idea.
> >>
> >> The CentOS Project board has a Red Hat Liaison. That position is
> >> documented here:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://www.centos.org/about/governance/board-responsibilities/#red-hat-liaison-responsibilities
> >>
> >> Also see role of Liaison here (and look at B:):
> >>
> >> https://www.centos.org/about/governance/voting/
> >>
> >> The bottom line is .. a decision of the CentOS Board has been made and
> >> we don't have to like it. We do have to do it, regardless of if we like
> >> it.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CentOS mailing list
> >> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > B. The Liaison may, in exceptional circumstances, make a decision on
> behalf
> > of the Board if a consensus has not been reached on an issue that is
> deemed
> > time or business critical by Red Hat.
> >
> >
> >
> > So, Johnny, are you saying that the RedHat Liaison, who is Brian
> Exelbierd (
> > bexelbie@xxxxxxxxxx) has forced this decision on the CentOS Board,
> despite
> > objection from the Board?
> >
> > Brian, please answer this directly, or the so called "Transparency" from
> > RedHat and CentOS we were promised will be clearly shown to be a lie.
> >
> >
>
> No .. I am saying that the CentOS Board knows that option exists, and
> therefore we know that IF it is invoked, we get no say in what will
> happen for that decision. I am saying that the CentOS Board therefore
> made a hard decision given the situation we were in.
>
>
Then I go back to my previous message, the Board failed to properly engage,
and represent the Project's users.
Sorry, but basically saying you caved to RedHat's pressure is worse to me
than if you forced them to invoke this option.
It's clear from our reaction here, and *everywhere else* that this decision
is *not* in the best interest of CentOS's users.
You might as well all resign from this Board, since it is a puppet
organization. Which is directly the opposite of what we were told would be
the case.
Again, back to the Trust issue. We have none now.
--
*Matt Phelps*
*Information Technology Specialist, Systems Administrator*
(Computation Facility, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory)
Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian
60 Garden Street | MS 39 | Cambridge, MA 02138
email: mphelps@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cfa.harvard.edu | Facebook <http://cfa.harvard.edu/facebook> | Twitter
<http://cfa.harvard.edu/twitter> | YouTube <http://cfa.harvard.edu/youtube>
| Newsletter <http://cfa.harvard.edu/newsletter>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
