+ 

+ Attending	1

+ Agenda	1

+ Comms out from end of meeting	3

+ Q&A back to RH stakeholders	4

+ Attending

+ Carl

+ Jim

+ Johnny

+ Karsten

+ KB

+ Mike

+ Tru

+ Regrets:

+ Ralph

+ Fabian 

+ 

+ 

+ Ref:

+ 1. RH Stakeholder responses to CentOS BOD Feedback

+ 2. New Blog post being proposed 

+ 

+ Agenda

+ Recap response doc

+ JH: need to understand the biz constraints that are causing RHT to implement this.

+ JP: Spoke to Mike McGrath and Stephanie, infra revenue, representing RHEL income has a marked decline, and there is understanding that the biz impact is there.

+ CT: there may be some way to get some privileged info to Board

+ KW: Spoke to Chris Wright last week around time to action

+ Chris is working on a ver of data that can be shared

+ MM: question if this change will impact/change the numbers ( re: material harm )

+ MM: is there any counter proposal that will ‘fly’ - it feels like there is very little compromise here.

+ KW: depends on the msg they want to deliver

+ Variations on ‘asking for more time’ - allow us to message the change.

+ KW: if the problem is that the rebuild needs distance from RHT, then maybe Software Freedom Conservancy umbrella or something can be used to create distance.

+ putting it under a foundation is not ideal but it may be less distasteful than the immediate killing of the clone

+ KW: we be open and transparent, communicate what RHT asked for and our agreement

+ KB: can we provide solutions for use cases that people we care about actually do?

+ KW:  one trick is that out of the gate, people think of their use case as "it's like RHEL" in terms of the instant fear/flight response to news if you can get them to look at their real use case, then we can address those

+ Shrink main CentOS with Stream as a SIG?

+ Why shrink core? Reasons reasons reasons

+ Leave PHP alone but change Java, etc.

+ JP: could use some breathing room to release what is & start time line to figure out technical change - should, can, etc.

+ KW: then we don’t try to ship a broken thing

+ JP: fedora server goes away and the story unifies between fedora -> rhel -> centos

+ JH: how does redhat get a respite from the ‘clones’

+ JP: 

+ Noone trusts Oracle ( ~ seen as a smaller threat )

+ We are not trying to compete with the clones, because we can take a path and build the onramp through here

+ CT:

+ Dynamic is driven by supply and demand; hosting / sci / etc where CentOS built the user base; RHEL user minimal overlap with CentOS; but the brand is being used by the enterprise to threat RHEL. The user base, eg, hosters, will never be in that place.

+ OKD has a potential working model

+ Can we satisfy the existing CentOS user base - without a direct association and linkage with RHEL ( focusing the demographics that RHEL does not productise, keeping the footprint away from where RHEL is going to want to renegotiate )

+ Oracle doing this not going to matter 

+ There might be segments beyond hosting / web-services that we may miss, so in the announcement open the doors, make it inclusive for them to come engage.

+ JH: how close to RHEL we can keep CentOS

+ JP: short term, drop CentOS8 with 8 kernel, 8.1 user space

+ Longer term: CentOS would be -devel branch 

+ JP: There is internal push to have RH Layered Projects to use CentOS Streams

+ KW: Strong msg from internal projects is pretty strong ( and will support the initiative )

+ Tru: SL, is trusted - unlike Oracle, to do this work in the public

+ JP: RHT will engage with SL, to make sure they are fine with things

+ They are asking for time to transition, given that, they would be willing to work with us.

+ CERN / FERMI : identified people to talk with.

+ Tru: what about hardware vendors

+ The KABI / Whitelist would be ahead of CentOS 

+ Nvidia drivers as an example, are specified against specific RHEL kernel versions

+ KW: Should we be saying, as a project, that the brand is being mis-used, and use that argument to setup the change coming down

+ JH: cve’s etc still need to be included in the content / code. It might land earlier (?)

+ JP: the bugfix work happens with us, and that means the content lands ahead.

+ CVE work is embargoed - and should land with us in source at roughly the same sort of time as it lands in product, or soon after

+ For Karsten to take back to RH stakeholders

+ board understands the problem

+ wants to make sure the community comes along, doesn't create a bad response for RH and individuals involved, once done can never come back - new coke, classic coke -- 

+ TH + CT- no matter how well planned, if it goes wrong, do we have any idea how we’re going to respond

+ board is working through this as a collaboration for solving the problem

+ few concerns talking through, tweaks/suggestions, clarifications we need to work through, we'll come back

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ Comms out from end of meeting

+ Hi Chris, Mike:

+ 

+ As promised earlier with Mike et al, here is a quick update from our continued CentOS BOD discussions today. Carl was able to join us and get his perspective into the conversation.

+ 

+ The BOD understands the problem being presented by Red Hat stakeholders. The Directors want to make sure the community comes along with project changes, and that it doesn't create a bad response for Red Hat and the individuals involved, which -- once done -- can never be undone.

+ 

+ Basically the Directors are thinking of the story of New Coke.[1] We want to introduce “New CentOS” and are concerned that how we treat “Classic CentOS” may end up with a negative backlash that undermines “New CentOS” before people even give it a taste.

+ 

+ The Board is working this as a collaboration for solving the problem. We have a few concerns we're talking through, and will have some tweaks and suggestions to the make, as well as clarifications to work through.

+ 

+ We're meeting again on Wednesday after a few days of async collaboration (time TBD) and I'll contact you following that.

+ 

+ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke

+ 

+ Best regards, 

+ 

+ 

+ Q&A back to RH stakeholders

+ How do we know the plan is successful?

+ What happens if CentOS Stream is too successful and customers start preferring it to CentOS?

+ 

+ Attending

+ MIke McLean

+ Tru

+ Jiim

+ Johnny

+ Kasten

+ Fabian (late)

+ 

+ Actions

+ Karsten to reach out to Chris W about the business justification

+ 

+ Notes

+ Questions we need answers to ASAP

+ Business justification

+ What are the details of how the source is going to move?

+ CentOS Stream 8

+ 

+ Attending

+ KB SIngh

+ Jim Perrin

+ Karsten Wade

+ Tru Huynh (late)

+ 

+ Notes

+ No quorum, discussions

+ Defining user base we care about let’s us have a metric to track

+ Messaging

+ Getting a release announcement together, bits finished faster

+ He’s the thing we’re saying

+ Get our big upstream projects to support (RDO, oVirt, Ceph, etc.)

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ Attending

+ KB SIngh

+ Mike McLean

+ Tru Huynh

+ Ralph Angenendt

+ Karsten Wade

+ Fabian Arrotin

+ Johnny Hughes

+ 

+ Minutes

+ Development work MUST be done in CentOS in the open prior to landing in RHEL, zero internal devel by Dec 2020.

+ The “8”

+ There MUST be a thing that is always tied to the 8 codebase, as separate from the thing that will be tied to the 9+ codebases.

+ As long as there is an EL8 codebase, there MUST be a CentOS Stream based on that codebase - GA to EOL.

+ These 2+ streams MUST be named differently so it’s clear what you are using.

+ There SHALL NOT BE a single stream where people relying upon the el8-based stream are at risk of receiving an el9-based instead against their will.

+ Clarification for “8” wall paper etc

+ Good faith due to short time frame

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ Agenda / Notes

+ 

+ Rich Bowen brings a stakeholder review as the CentOS community manager:

+ https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ju0fDUQinILpOCCoZKPQs6MHwgpk90XZS-NJ-kpuhg0/edit#slide=id.g4ef029a052_0_11

+ ACTION:  Why do we participate in particular events?  Rich needs to know what we care about and why.

+ ACTION:  Where does the Board want Rich to go this coming year?

+ 2018 list - FOSDEM, SuperComputering Asia (Singapore), FOSSAsia, Red hat Summit, Berlin Buzzwords, ISC Supercomputing …

+ 2019 tentative list - ORNL; Devconf; SCALE …

+ Dojos

+ FOSDEM is done, happy 15 years!

+ ORNL (April)

+ Locally organized (Chris Leighton), promoted, etc.

+ Devconf.IN - tentative, need space at event

+ Devconf.US - confirmed (August 14)

+ Lyon (October, tentative) -- with Open Source Summit

+ Dojos overall

+ Process & budget has been moved from prototype to repeatable process that has been used by a few people now

+ Meetups

+ No progress made in 2018.

+ Four groups exist but aren’t active

+ May not make sense of itself

+ Maybe participate in existing Linux groups within Meetup space

+ Social media

+ Med to large groups at - twitter, facebook, linkedin, youtube, reddit, centos forum

+ @centosproject - 1800 to 5500 today

+ Sentiment analysis trends positive toward the project

+ Blogging

+ 31 posts in 2017 (2 to 3 pre month)

+ 54 in 2018

+ 12 of 104 on pace in 2019 (if can maintain)

+ Expanded authorship

+ Most SIG leads are producing content for the blog, such as promoting their work around releases

+ Quality is high

+ SIG work this year

+ Analysis on activity, looking for inactive

+ SIGs are beginning to issue reports, high quality content

+ SIG meetup at CERN

+ Proactive about contacting upstream projects not involved in SIG process.

+ Newsletter

+ Restarted after a decade, started in Summer 2018, issue every month since then

+ A few volunteers for translation so far but not happened yet

+ 2019 goals

+ More people engaged in authoring of newsletter, especially technical content

+ Bootstrap a lightweight ‘ambassador’ program -- send people to events that Rich cannot attend.  Budget, canned messaging, to send to a regional event.

+ Seeking non-RH involvement in SIGs.

+ More cross-promotion within SIGs

+ Discussion / Q&A

+ KB - let’s message into G+ to make sure people find us from there

+ KB - Dojos came up from desire to bootstrap local communities, but it’s hard to get it locally organized.  What is the opportunity around demographics?

+ What does CentOS do for different groups?  Sysadmin communities, small infra setups -- installer optimization, spam management, etc.

+ 

+ 

+ What is our unified CentOS Next (8) message?

+ Lot of internal product developer relationships being worked currently

+ Building SIG content to use as an ambassador at events

+ Smoothing out the Twitter spikes with more regular engagement?

+ Where to be this year?

+ Developers are interesting but hard to get into

+ Automation tooling ci/cd?

+ Rich will need a technical partner for some of these events

+ Open discussion post Rich’s presentation

+ He’s doing a great job, people are saying so

+ Sysadmin v. cloud admin -- we get traffic but involvement?

+ Rasp Pi is a good story but not promoted

+ Could we deliver a compelling platform into the Apache Foundation?

+ SIGs

+ George Dunlap -- how do I justify to my manager that this is worth spending time on?

+ Value of a SIG & community driven by a vendor

+ Variation for e.g.s ISVs, IHVs

+ Vs. ‘come join your users’

+ How is that for e.g. Facebook?

+ 

+ 

+ Attending (quorum)

+ Mike McLean

+ Jim Perrin

+ Karsten Wade

+ Johnny Hughes

+ Karanbir Singh

+ 

+ Notes

+ Center our reply back around impact on layered products

+ Satellite, OpenStack -- layered products devel platform

+ Having a Stream shift to RHEL 9 beta mid-stream is needed

+ 

+ 

+ What does it honestly mean to have CentOS as an upstream to RHEL?

+ Need all of Phase 1 to be a useful upstream and six months to shift to N+1.

+ 

+ 

+ Timing idea

+ Phase 1 -- 5 years of feature devel

+ One point release into Phase 1 to help layered teams

+ 2 years of overlap

+ Alignment

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ Reply

+ “There needs to be a CentOS Stream version for every RHEL major release. This Stream version needs to be usable for layered projects for as long as RHEL is in Phase 1 of active development. Once a RHEL release goes to Phase 2, we need to give projects and the open source ecosystem six months to shift to the active development Stream.”

+ 

+ “A year in advance of RHEL 9 we have a Stream 9 that is public beta for RHEL. From RHEL 9 release we have 5 years of active development window. Three years into that we pick up the RHEL 10.”

+ This means a version per RHEL that goes through Phase 1 then EOLs in the community.

+ This means two versions of Stream. CentOS Stream Green and CentOS Stream Blue.

+ One is always in the Phase 1, one becomes Alpha then moves past release

+ 

+ Attending

+ Red Hat Products and Technologies

+ Stefanie Chiras

+ Chris Wright

+ Leslie Hawthorn

+ Mike McGrath

+ CentOS Board of Directors

+ Jim Perrin

+ KB Singh (Chair)

+ Karsten Wade (Liaison)

+ Johnny Hughes

+ Mike McLean

+ Carl Trieloff

+ Regrets

+ Ralph Angenendt?

+ Tru Huynh?

+ 

+ Agenda / Minutes

+ Short intro and hello around the table

+ 

+ 

+ Liaison sets context for call

+ Karsten discussing the context of the call, particularly the last gap in our plans related to lifecycle.  When we took 8 out of the CentOS stream name, we left it without any sort of lifecycle which is confusing people and difficult to message

+ 

+ 

+ Need a quick comment on transition / CentOS 8

+ Red Hat has been listening to the feedback and sorry for the late change in plans but Red Hat agrees that we will ship the clone and call it CentOS 8.  This means we will *not* have to ship nor name anything called “transition”.  However we don’t want to discuss lifecycle publically, we’d like the ability to give a 1 year notice before we stop building it.

+ Third way discussion about foundations

+ 

+ 

+ Share and discuss proposed solutions to gap in agreement

+ Red Hat proposed a one year overlap between major releases so there’s not an immediate significant bump to people.  That overlap starts one year before RHEL9 GA, and ends at RHEL9 GA.

+ People generally think that with the name change proposed above (Call the clone “CentOS 8”) and giving a one year overlap is a sufficient path to success.

+ 

+ Decision

+ Following this meeting, the Board of Directors reached consensus in favor of the final version of the Red Hat proposal around CentOS Stream. This includes a BOD commitment to promoting Stream, as well as working regularly with the business to track progress on adoption and shift away from the rebuild.

+ 

+ CentOS Board - meeting minutes - 2019-11-13

+ CentOS Board - meeting minutes - 2019-11-13

+ Attendees

+ Agenda

+ Actions

+ Minutes

+ Public minutes

+ Attendees

+ Jim

+ Johnny

+ Karsten

+ Carl

+ Mikem

+ Agenda

+ Any other topics aka What other things do you want on our master initiatives list?

+ Transparency initiatives

+ Stepping-up our meeting norms

+ Announcing Fabian ...

+ New Board members

+ New branding work underway

+ Actions

+ 

+ ACTION: Continue discussion about adding an RH technical leader onto the Board or in an empowered leadership position

+ ACTION: look for a visionary person to consider

+ ACTION: Karsten to write up meeting minutes, release by Friday

+ ACTION: All continue identifying how we can be more transparent, take action there

+ ACTION: All invited to work with RIch and Karsten on transparency initiatives

+ ACTION: Karsten to ask Fabian his wishes about how we release the news of his leaving the Board

+ ACTION: Jim to talk with Thomas Oulevey and Pat RIehicky about interest in joining the Board, to bring a historical-but-looking-forward perspective.

+ ACTION: All to look for a visionary non-RH leader to elevate to a special role for the Board or to be a Director; someone who sees the vision and strategy for the future of the project.

+ Minutes

+ New topics aka What other things do you want on our master initiatives list?

+ Carl: Is it time to swap Carl’s role as semi-Exec Sponsor for the BOD?

+ Evangelism & technology internal

+ One idea (eng leaderships side): Stef Walters

+ Another (on program side): Brendan Conoboy

+ ACTION: Continue discussion

+ Brian Exelbierd role

+ Owns community upstream ‘line of business’ role in Gunnar Hellekson’s team, champion of Stream from BU perspective

+ Announcing Fabian …

+ With new Directors?

+ Jim:  concern about Streisand effect, want to get Fabian’s clear wishes

+ Karsten: propose that we bundle in with an announcement about new Directors with simple ‘thanks for service’, no-big-deal language.

+ ACTION: Karsten to ask Fabian his wishes

+ New Board members

+ CERN

+ Thomas Oulevey

+ FERMI?

+ Pat Riehicky

+ QA person?

+ Akemi?

+ SIG leader

+ 

+ 

+ Bundle as one announcement?

+ ACTION: Who will talk with them?

+ Jim to talk to Pat, Thomas

+ ACTION: look for a visionary person to consider

+ New branding work underway

+ https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1

+ https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2019-November/018098.html

+ We’ve had loose standards up to this point for things we did (swag) and loose approval (Directors approving things)

+ Transparency initiatives

+ Working with Rich for how transparency supports the success of Stream, SIGs as key to future of project stability

+ Jim notes that the #1 requested item is Board meeting minutes

+ Johnny notes that work around 8 is way more open than before

+ Karsten notes that SIGs are working on transparency, we want to model good behavior for them

+ 

+ 

+ Stepping-up our meeting norms

+ Regular meetings, with rolling agenda

+ Report out from meeting

+ Move things forward incrementally

+ Integrate new Directors & look at increasing speed of adjustments

+ ACTION: Karsten to write up meeting minutes, release by Friday

+ ACTION: All continue identifying how we can be more transparent, take action there

+ ACTION: All invited to work with RIch and Karsten on transparency initiatives

+ Public minutes

+ 

+ On 2019-11-13 the CentOS Board of DIrectors held their first meeting following the release of CentOS Linux 8 and announcement of CentOS Stream.

+ 

+ As covered in this meeting, the CentOS Board are taking on an initiative to increase transparency of the working of the Board. This set of minutes for the community and wider public is the first instance of new, more transparent processes in action.

+ 

+ Topics covered in the meeting and email discussion are discussed below, and remain open on the Board’s rolling agenda for future conversation and actions:

+ 

+ Board membership:

+ The Board has been considering for some time adjusting the membership of the Board, in particular by adding new Directors. Discussions with potential new Directors will begin.

+ All discussed the need for future leadership of the CentOS Project to continue being able to straddle the project’s traditional footing on one side, and help drive a vision for the future on the other side.

+ Transparency initiatives:

+ All agree that the biggest need for transparency in the Project is at the Board level.

+ Other groups e.g. SIGs are generally following good transparency practices

+ Board Directors have been asked directly about this topic and the issue of the Board not releasing minutes from meetings.

+ The Board’s infrequent meetings have not been configured to easily generate public topics, since most technical and day-to-day leadership happens in the SIGs especially the Core SIG and QA SIG.

+ Next step -- improving Board meeting norms

+ AGREED: Publish (for next and future meetings) that there will be a meeting, and what the public portion of the agenda is, in advance of the meeting.

+ AGREED: Publish a set of public minutes within 48 hours of the conclusion of a Board meeting

+ AGREED: There will be a rolling element to the agenda so that items are not dropped between meetings but rather eventually addressed/resolved.

+ ACTION: Karsten to write and publish this set of public meeting minutes

+ New branding work underway - Karsten briefed the Board on the community efforts to consider the CentOS brand, logo, and overall branding in light of the addition of CentOS Stream.

+ https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1

+ https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2019-November/018098.html

+ AGREED: Board more actively drive approving/rejecting design ideas.

+ AGREED: There will be a reasonable time for discussion around the potential brand changes, and the Board will ensure the discussion concludes in a timely manner.

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ CentOS Board - meeting minutes - 2019-12-18

+ CentOS Board - meeting minutes - 2019-12-18

+ Attendees

+ Actions

+ Decisions, resolutions, and agreements

+ Agenda

+ Consent items

+ Public agenda

+ Public agenda consent items

+ Public minutes

+ Attendees

+ KB Singh

+ Jim Perrin

+ Karsten Wade

+ Mike McLean

+ Carl Trieloff

+ Ralph Angenendt

+ Guest -- Stef Walter

+ Actions

+ ACTION: (Carry all actions from notes below up to this section)

+ ACTION: KB & Karsten to reach out to Thomas & Pat.

+ ACTION:  use the goals process to bring Stef in and along. KB,KW,JP to be hands on for scaffolding the goals.

+ ACTION: Jim to work with Fabian/CPE to begin working on a signing and release solution for SIGs, work starting in Jan 2020.

+ 

+ 

+ Decisions, resolutions, and agreements

+ Board agrees there is a significant debt in the content flow, CPE agrees to commit engineering towards this in early CY 2020.

+ Agenda + Minutes

+ Meet with Stef Walter to talk about representing and evangelizing for CentOS toward a contributor project as part of a newly formed Advisory Council.

+ Stef joining us for the first 30 minutes of call to talk through the concept.

+ Councilor role description.

+ NOTES

+ Came out of Carl and KB conversation, seeing that he has the right skillset

+ Stef quite interested in creating contribution ability especially through his teams.

+ KW: context around Advisory Council, bootstrapping an engagement group that have a touch point with the project + code today.

+ Composition : Sig leaders as members

+ Were really good at some things, are they the things that are most impactful, and what the sig cares about most (?)

+ Contributor pipeline, from beginning to end, enablement is key

+ Stef as bootstrap for AC

+ CT - 1) meeting Stef; 2) what is mechanism to bring Stef in; 3) Karsten’s alternate mechanism.

+ JP: Carl’s influence is welcome and needed, but his being on board itself might not have the desired level of impact ( int / ext ), so Carl having a formal position, off the board might also be good enough ( words used, not concerned either way )

+ MM - ideas work both ways to accomplish ends in terms of board sets and advisory council. What is the likelihood of perception of forceful move in just adding an outsider?

+ SW - happy to go at pace stakeholders define

+ KB - goals document, we’ve been doing that more or less. Where we are today is an opportunity to rewrite our goals document in a way that the community agree with direction. Bringing in these various voices to define the goals is possible. Opportunity is right now, next 3 months.

+ RA - CT asks what are specific questions or conversations to have?

+ Rewriting goals document in public is a good thing. As a changing organization, we met, here’s where we want to be

+ ACTION - board f2f before FOSDEM to work stuff?

+ To get Stream to be something we need someone evangelizing and focusing on that one.

+ CT - could use goals process to bring in Pat and Tomas and Stef to work that process.

+ KB - nit about to their bosses, should be empowered to be who they have done not because of who they represent.

+ JP - +1 to KB

+ MM - think about optics with all due seriousness/consideration.

+ Stef questions -- very lean in terms of taking on responsibility, Board sounds like bounded work, Councilor sounds unbound. If advisory role represents the work we’re doing already, and if the platform does what is needed, that’s OK.

+ CT - stef has the bridge to RHEL, ability to drive and evangelize is bar none/top notch.

+ ACTION - use the goals process to bring Stef in and along. KB,KW,JP to be hands on for scaffolding the goals.

+ KB & KW to reach out to Pat and Thomas, and see if they can be part of this as well

+ Advisory Council - discussion toward a proposal - discussion draft

+ [NEW] IRC channel move

+ Build discussion:

+ CPE is ready to build and release into Amazon for C8. Request to authorize them to proceed as the “new way” for CentOS Linux 8 and CentOS Stream

+ Amazon relationship issue, more work is needed here.

+ Work on plumbing for this to happen in 8.1 time frame.

+ 

+ 

+ CPE can begin building a new signing & release solution for SIGs in the new year. Request to authorize them to proceed as a new system for C8 and replacement for C7, maybe C6.

+ ACTION: Jim and KB work this out. Fabian can start working on a signing solution for Jan.

+ Public report: board agrees there is a significant debt in the content flow, CPE agree’s to commit engineering towards this early FY ‘20

+ [NEW] Reporting on and better understanding the build process for CentOS Linux 8 and the update lag / point release challenges

+ Early Jan ETA for ISOS

+ Audience segments, anything missing? Spreadsheet

+ "Cowboys" - DIY Hyperscalers (Facebook, Google)

+ Enterprises - Comcast, SFDC, Workday

+ Free Riders - Home lab users

+ Free Riders - Small business (2-3 servers)

+ Free Riders - Non-Profits & Other Cost Constrained Orgs

+ Free Riders - Small web hosters

+ Large/Established ISVs (SAP, SQL Server)

+ Pre & small ISVs

+ Container ISVs

+ Partner Collaborations (Intel DPDK)

+ Enterprise developers

+ Upstream Developers - Projects

+ Upstream Developers - CI Providers/Users

+ HPC / Scientific Computing

+ Trademark Guidelines review:

+ What works & what does not.

+ What do we want to get fixed; who wants to work on that.

+ Rolling (last from 2019-11-13):

+ Any other topics aka What other things do you want on our key initiatives list?

+ New branding work underway

+ Website update work: https://github.com/areguera/centos-style-websites

+ Framework proposed into logo discussion: https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1#comment-62 

+ Stepping-up our meeting norms

+ Announcing Fabian …

+ New Board members

+ Transparency initiatives

+ Consent items

+ Shared auth with Fedora, as described here

+ Secretary role revitalized -- not formally in the governance yet, role is delegated meeting organization duties from the Chair to include calling for meetings, managing the private and public agenda for meetings, and handling the creation and release of private and public minutes. Karsten has volunteered to take this role until approximately June 2020.

+ Public agenda

+ Looking at if Community Platform Engineering (CPE) can begin to build and release CentOS Linux 8 and CentOS Stream into various public clouds.

+ Review of signing and release solutions for SIGs in the new year.

+ Rolling (last from 2019-11-13):

+ Any other topics aka “What other things do you want on our key initiatives list for 2020?”

+ New branding work underway

+ Website update work: https://github.com/areguera/centos-style-websites

+ Framework proposed into logo discussion: https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1#comment-62 

+ Looking at new Board membership and structure (ongoing)

+ Stepping-up our meeting norms (ongoing)

+ Transparency initiatives (ongoing)

+ Public agenda consent items

+ Secretary role revitalized -- not formally in the governance yet, role is delegated meeting organization duties from the Chair to include calling for meetings, managing the private and public agenda for meetings, and handling the creation and release of private and public minutes. Karsten has volunteered to take this role until approximately June 2020.

+ Board intending to confirm support for planning a shift to sharing auth backends with the Fedora Project.

+ Public minutes

+ On 2019-12-18 the CentOS Board of Directors held the final meeting of the 2019 calendar year.

+ 

+ The meeting was focused primarily on how the Board can lead the project further into being a contributor-centric open source project while continuing to deliver value to our community of users. Of particular interest is growing participation in CentOS Streams in addition to ongoing efforts around CentOS SIGs.

+ 

+ As a centralizing effort, the Board agreed to revisiting the goals document created five years ago, and to undergo an effort to refresh those goals in the light of the project’s evolution. The Board will be inviting various stakeholders into these discussions as we undergo a public revision of the goals at the start of 2020.

+ 

+ In support of these efforts, the Board came to the following decisions, resolutions, and agreements:

+ 

+ Image creation, signing, and distribution:

+ AGREED: Board agrees there is a significant technical debt in the content flow. To address this the Board authorizes Community Platform Engineering (CPE) to commit engineering toward addressing this in early CY 2020.

+ ACTION: Jim to work with Fabian/CPE to begin working on a signing and release solution for SIGs, work starting in Jan 2020.

+ ACTION: Prioritize transparency and reporting to foster a better understanding of the build process for CentOS Linux 8, with an emphasis on the update lag/point release challenges

+ Project strategic goals:

+ AGREED: Undergo a revision of the project goals, to include a range of topics from technical to social/cultural. Do this work transparently, reaching out to specific community members and stakeholders such as RHEL Engineering.

+ Consent agenda items:

+ AGREED: Secretary role revitalized -- not formally in the governance yet, role is delegated meeting organization and management duties from the Chair to include calling for meetings, managing the private and public agenda for meetings, and handling the creation and release of private and public minutes. Karsten Wade has volunteered to take this role until approximately June 2020.

+ ACTION: Early in 2020 Karsten & KB to draft governance updates to reflect the Secretary role.

+ AGREED: Board confirms support for planning a shift to sharing auth backends with the Fedora Project.

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ CentOS Board - meeting minutes - 2020-03-11

+ CentOS Board - meeting minutes - YYYY-MM-DD

+ Attendees

+ Actions

+ Decisions, resolutions, and agreements

+ Agenda + Minutes

+ Public minutes

+ Attendees

+ KB

+ Jim Perrin

+ Karsten

+ MikeM

+ Ralph

+ Tru

+ 

+ Guests

+ Chris Wright

+ Deborah Bryant

+ Rich Bowen

+ Brian Exelbierd

+ Actions

+ ACTION: (Carry all actions from notes below up to this section)

+ ACTION: Karsten to convene a special Board call in 2 weeks; public agenda included

+ ACTION: Board needs to say from it’s perspective what the Red Hat Liaison role is

+ Decisions, resolutions, and agreements

+ Agenda + Minutes

+ Chris Wright discussion

+ CentOS Stream as area Red Hat is making investments

+ Staffing appropriately

+ RHEL 9 true manifestation of the vision of stream being the leading edge and defining direction for RHEL.

+ more than can be in RHEL 8 cycle

+ how does transition work?

+ RHEL 8 work was intention

+ getting to all the packages, how?

+ Stream transition

+ - when a rhel major release transition happens, what happens?

+ what is response to 'overnight cliff disruption'?

+ this is a critical dialog and with feedback from userbase

+ keysigning etc.

+ Basic timeline

+ Want to be at end of this year working in a model where Stream is in existence; concepts around Stream-focused SIGs to augment/layer capabilities; actual interested partners and users == clear flagship users; have all the community build infra set, ready to go; think about the end of this calendar year, this is all coalescing.

+ 2021 CentOS Stream becomes a real focal point for the CentOS community; where things are happening, interesting, etc.

+ Have some conversations around RH Summit 2021

+ Then proof of concept around taking contributos

+ Then from details of what it means to make and take a contribution

+ Late Spring, early summer 2021 work out contribution model

+ Late in 2021, a whole collection and momentum around the development of an ecosystem focused around Stream

+ Really becomes a central part of the overall Project

+ This is the RH mindset

+ Tru: What does this mean for runway between versions for developers?

+ Want to move to Stream being the distro

+ Stream being the world Red Hat is participating in CentOS, and the commercial distribution RH produces

+ MikeM: What is the transition like?

+ Chris: what does the overlap look like?

+ Moving from a EL8 to EL9 based stream is not chaos, that would kill the premise if it went wrong

+ Jim - 9 stream would be prominent, but 8 stream users would still continued to be able to pull for a transition period

+ Take an action to do the updae, yes

+ KB - have to keep it usable, not sacrifice the userbase.

+ What is the evolution model going to look like, what does usable look like?

+ Many people installing right now are expecting the long time between updates

+ If we’re changing the model, we need to work that through.

+ Chris - in a different world than in Fedora/rawhide

+ Not fundamentally invasive, but yes between major releases

+ When to kill the clone?

+ Chris: Starting at RHEL 9, there is no derivative

+ What does it mean for C8?

+ RH wants to see that one end, too

+ RH has put some thought into this, today’s world & tomorrow’s world?

+ Mapping from today to tomorrow for all groups

+ We have the main use cases figured out

+ Labs, partners are looking good so far

+ Reasonable understanding of

+ Mechanisms for making RHEL more accessible for certain types of use cases it’s currently unusable for

+ E.g. openstack or FDIO community, they target an RPM built artifact in their CI system, they currently cannot use RHEL due to subscription agreement. That could be addressed.

+ Change how we interact at RHEL level, rather than CentOS level.

+ Can’t only take care of some small %

+ Collaborate on how we segment on user community

+ KB: how does Fedora relationship change in what that things remain reasonable?

+ E.g. hyperscalers such as Facebook use CentOS, how does that work with the Fedora ecosystem?

+ For co-collaborators, the story is great

+ Fedora is evolve the distro, CentOS is stabilize for product?

+ Still same marketecture diagram

+ Fedora is still upstream, leading edge OS level changes location

+ Still base for subsequent Stream and major RHEL release comes from

+ Stream about moving the stable platform forward

+ Chris’ condense:

+ RH focus going forward is on Stream

+ From RHEL 9 forward that’s the way whole process will work

+ For 8, RH expectation is to meaningfully move the userbase to a Stream focused world and not keep the longtail of the rebuild going.

+ Johnny: I don’t have a problem with that conceptually, but the community is going to have their own feelings

+ That work is going to be picked up e.g. Oracle, and they start bleeding off all the biggest userbases, how does that benefit IBM or Red Hat? What to do about negative press? And diluting the userbase?

+ Chris: this is our biggest concern; we don’t want to introduce this to torpedo CentOS. 

+ Johnny: don’t be surprised when it happens

+ Sensitive to this as an outcome, want to do whatever RH can to maintain ideally all the userbase.

+ Not going to be 100%, but can we make it an acceptable loss.

+ Johnny: ideally we wouldn’t cut off the EL 8 rebuild

+ Chris: RH ideal is to do that within 8, cutoff then

+ Balancing disturbing with moving that userbase forward or to a landing place.

+ Mike: no subterfuge intention, however, we have not been talking publicly about this other part of it. We’ve only been talking about the awesomeness of Stream. In response, we’ve seen a lot of concern that this is a prelude to killing the rebuild. So we are holding back for PR reasons. But it wasn’t clear to me that it was impossible to talk Red Hat out of killing the clone.

+ Tru1:54 PM

+ as an end-user : prove that c8-stream works fine enough, and I will move to c9-stream, if you cut off c8-stream before eol rhel8, that will kill centos, imho.

+ Rich Bowen1:56 PM

+ Early, clear communication to the community, is so important, so that they can plan. When can we start preparing the community for what's coming?

+ KB - if we can prove that Stream is useful, then we can move forward without mincing words and without causing a panic.

+ Users care about the experience, not the version number

+ Can we carry that along

+ Tru2:02 PM

+ thanks for being honest for terminating c8 ni the medium/short term

+ Tru2:05 PM

+ hope for RH that c8-stream will take off, but I am not so optimistic, but I am am not RH, so I probably have all the rlevant info for that urgent need.

+ What Chris needs

+ Document role of Liaison, so RH knows how that role can be used?

+ What are things we Liaise on?

+ Can Board take an attempt at writing down Liaison role?

+ Jim:

+ What is RH’s interpretation of the role? Then compare.

+ 

+ 

+ Update on logo redesign

+ Website redesign

+ Ask Tuomas to help guide the other designer through the approval process, cf. logo?

+ What else?

+ Update on Pat & Thomas

+ Who wants to sponsor each of them? 2 volunteers needed

+ Thomas all lined up

+ Pat conversation with Bonnie, Garry hopefully coming next week

+ Goal is to have them closed and announced before end of March, on the April call

+ Update on IRC channel

+ Bylaws memory?

+ Rolling (last from 2020-02-12):

+ (Private) Trademark Guidelines review:

+ What works & what does not.

+ What do we want to get fixed; who wants to work on that.

+ (Private) Advisory Council - discussion toward a proposal - discussion draft

+ On hold while goals discussion is held, which includes a review and update of governance. We’ll figure out what model we want from that and how this idea might fit.

+ Any other topics aka What other things do you want on our master initiatives list?

+ Stepping-up our meeting norms

+ (Private) New Board members

+ Transparency initiatives

+ Public minutes

+ On YYYY-MM-DD the CentOS Board of Directors met …

+ 

+ Narrative summary of what was discussed.

+ 

+ In support of these efforts, the Board came to the following decisions, resolutions, and agreements:

+ 

+ Item 1

+ AGREED or

+ ACTION

+ …

+ Item N

+ AGREED or

+ ACTION

+ 

+ Present at the meeting:

+ 

+ 

+ (Guest)

+ 

+ 

+ (Secretary)

+ 

+ 

+ (Chair)

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ CentOS Board - meeting agenda - 2020-03-25

+ CentOS Board - meeting agenda - 2020-03-25

+ Attendees

+ Guests

+ Actions

+ Decisions, resolutions, and agreements

+ Agenda + Minutes

+ Public minutes

+ Attendees

+ Mike McLean

+ Karanbir Singh

+ Ralph Angenendt

+ Karsten Wade

+ Johnny Hughes

+ Jim Perrin

+ Guests

+ N/A

+ Actions

+ ACTION: Karsten converting today’s discussion into a draft criteria doc.

+ ACTION: Directors to pair as sponsors with incoming Directors.

+ 

+ 

+ Decisions, resolutions, and agreements

+ Agenda + Minutes

+ Bold-faced items should be addressed in this meeting.

+ EOL for 8

+ Spec we need; what are objectives and how do we solve them?

+ Begin to list out criteria for CentOS Stream to replace CentOS Linux 8 where it matters to us.

+ We want these groups taken care of, but need to know what “taken care of” means: Market segments worksheet

+ JH: CPE is working to get things going, but there hasn’t been a commit to git that wasn’t manually rolled-in.

+ JH: To be usable, has to be updated, continually updated, and that the system can actually be used.

+ JP: This informs the baseline

+ JH: publicly committed bugs, infrastructure, etc. where people who are not just RH customers, members of the community can get in, ask for, show stuff, interact publicly on -devel list

+ JH: This must be a promise.

+ JH: What about the maintenance phase? 

+ JP: Maintenance phase is almost exclusively embargoed content; committed to developing product in Stream, they may wish at a certain point that CentOS stop doing the builds and binaries, to get the userbases interested in shifting to the next thing.

+ JH: Need to state the timeline up front for how long a versioned Stream is going to be developed into.

+ JP: What Cormier wants is that we don’t focus on the Stream versions from the Project communication/marketing.

+ KB: what happens when there is a rollover of the main Stream? What happens in the trenches (rather than on the marketing page)?

+ JP: transition period of 12-18 months where there is a X, X+1 versions out there.

+ KB: Red Hat must be invested in keeping the lights on during that transition time.

+  JP: Is sure development is going to happen, but RH Eng/BU will want CentOS to stop building the binaries. All the work will be in the public, they want our help in pushing the latest content.

+ JH: What release point will the binaries stop?

+ JP: This is for the entire life of feature development phase (Phase 1) binaries will be needed and desired. When Phase 1 stops RH wants us to move people to the next Phase 1-based Stream. Typically five years.

+ JH: Is that 5 years + 18 months so criteria of End of Phase 1 plus 18 months or plus 12 months or … What do we need so that we don’t lose to Oracle?

+ JP: A little before that, current intent is to have RHEL 9 beta be CentOS Stream and no RHEL beta.

+ KB: We need at least 36 months of stable plus 18 months beyond that, that we should be able to work with. There will only be two Stream versions at a time..

+ JP: 8 is going to be a weird reduced lifecycle, we have to do fuzzy math with 8 stream. 9 is our best model to define from.

+ MM: We need adoption before we can yank out the rug and alienate users, which is not what anyone wants.

+ KB: %'sage adoption is a good metric to add as well, its not easy to measure so we need to have something that can be qualified

+ Needs a finite, measurable thing such as hitrate on mirrors; logs from mirrors.centos.org. Representative of trends.

+ KB: “If 25% of traffic on mirrorlist has to shift”

+ 

+ 

+ KB: Chris wants to have an announcement by a time period, but what actually happens when is different.

+ KB: Can we get to the qualification of what is a good enough CentOS distribution? If 8 Stream ends up not quite being the adoption vehicle, then we can call it a POC and have a solid plan for 9.

+ JH: Phase 1+$time_period is necessary to transition to keep from losing people off the cliff.

+ RA: Years vs. Phase 1 vs. commitment for RHEL 3 years (so RHEL + transition phase).

+ JP: 3 years announced already, committed, going to push layers to move over.

+ RA: what are the actual years for the Phases?

+ Phase 1 - 5 years feature development

+ Maintenance Support 1

+ Phase 2 - 2 years maintenance bugfix secfix

+ Phase 3 - 2 years gathering dust

+ MM: One viable criteria is proof of community participation in Stream--RH Engineers, yes, but the rest of the community. We can measure this, this shows adoption/caring.

+ RA: Measure work into bug tracker, different points of contact across the different bug trackers.

+ JH: We have broad agreement that the Download button changes to follow the new thing.

+ JH: Let’s not be shorter than a Debian devel cycle.

+ 

+ 

+ Update on Pat & Thomas

+ Who wants to sponsor each of them? 2 volunteers needed

+ Johnny for Pat, Mike for Thomas

+ Thomas all lined up

+ Pat conversation with Bonnie, Garry hopefully coming next week

+ Goal is to have them closed and announced before end of March, on the April call

+ CentOS Stream items

+ Liaison role - draft?

+ Next meeting

+ Update on logo redesign

+ Website redesign

+ Ask Tuomas to help guide the other designer through the approval process, cf. logo?

+ What else?

+ Update on IRC channel -- FIXED

+ Bylaws memory?

+ Rolling (last from 2020-02-11):

+ (Private) Trademark Guidelines review:

+ What works & what does not.

+ What do we want to get fixed; who wants to work on that.

+ (Private) Advisory Council - discussion toward a proposal - discussion draft

+ On hold while goals discussion is held, which includes a review and update of governance. We’ll figure out what model we want from that and how this idea might fit.

+ Any other topics aka What other things do you want on our master initiatives list?

+ Stepping-up our meeting norms

+ (Private) New Board members

+ Transparency initiatives

+ Public minutes

+ On YYYY-MM-DD the CentOS Board of Directors met …

+ 

+ Narrative summary of what was discussed.

+ 

+ In support of these efforts, the Board came to the following decisions, resolutions, and agreements:

+ 

+ Item 1

+ AGREED or

+ ACTION

+ …

+ Item N

+ AGREED or

+ ACTION

+ 

+ Present at the meeting:

+ 

+ 

+ (Guest)

+ 

+ 

+ (Secretary)

+ 

+ 

+ (Chair)

+ 

+