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)