Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rocky Linux To Support Upstream Stable Kernels

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DumbFsck
    replied
    Originally posted by stack View Post

    I'm happy to answer legitimate questions.
    Do you mind personal ones?

    I wanted to ask why did you personally choose to help Rocky instead of Alma.

    Full disclosure, I've got no horse in this race, as per my previous post, I did have issues with the amount of mis/disinformation that went around back then, which verifiably happened, of course not necessarily intentional, every mob drinks up whatever falsities they need to swallow to justify their hatred.


    Second question, what benefits specifically made Rocky choose to not be a c(3)? (I know nothing of American law and tax code btw).


    Lastly, do you feel that you and other contributors not from CIQ can freely and severely criticise CIQ as a company, their business model, their decisions etc? I'm not saying there is something to criticise, I'm asking that if there WAS would people be comfortable in exposing their disagreements.

    Leave a comment:


  • qarium
    replied
    Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
    I will be more than happy to.
    Rocky is stealing from Red Hat, not the software but the business Red Hat built.
    When IBM bought Redhat, IBM did not join the open source camp. You can see this in the fact that Power10 is no longer completely open source like Power9.​ this means Red Hat today is no longer the open source community Red Hat of the past it was enemy takeover and IBM-RedHat has nothing to do with the open-source community. they are not even hardware provider neutral​ anymore because IBM produce hardware them self. this means Red Hat did quit beeing a member of the open-source community and any person is advised to stop using Red-Hat linux based servers or cloud products. there is only one reason why you personally do support IBM-Red-Hat its because you are from the dark cabale evil group who did perform the enemy takeover of Red-Hat. so stop spread your poison here. Open-Source and Free software licenses like GPL where made to prevent exactly this enemy takeover what IBM did with red-hat

    Leave a comment:


  • eidolon
    replied
    Originally posted by spicfoo View Post
    Gregory Kurtzer for example is the [president and] chair of Rocky Linux foundation and he is also the CEO of CIQ.
    And owner of the Rocky Enterprise Software Foundation. As he is also the founder of CIQ, it is probable he maintained principal ownership of it. I am not making an argument against the so-called BDFL model or the worth of the Rocky Linux project, but there is currently an inextricable link between the RESF and CIQ beyond sponsorship. What that means for the future of the Rocky Linux project remains to be seen.
    Last edited by eidolon; 20 April 2024, 07:01 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • spicfoo
    replied
    Originally posted by stack View Post
    I understand what you are saying. The Rocky community felt they were the best options for leadership and they were voted in. There have been multiple public instances already where Greg has made it known there was a conflict and he didn't vote on a topic. He could have; he didn't. Does Greg want CIQ to succeed? Yes. Does Greg want Rocky to succeed? Yes. Does he get to make decisions for Rocky to further CIQ goals to the detriment of the community? No. He doesn't hold that kind of power (nor is he that kind of man; he's really a nice guy). .
    I don't want to depend on the niceness of one person because that is a single point of failure. I desire structural neutrality. As long as one corporation remains chair and VP, you don't have that. Plain and simple. If the chair is indeed nice about this and I have no reason to suspect otherwise, let him know this. If he cares about the longevity of this effort, there must be a transition plan in place that doesn't depend on his personal traits.

    Originally posted by stack View Post
    Zero basis? Quickly jumped?
    Yes, you have zero basis to claim I have anything personal against these people. I don't know them nor do I care about them one way or the other. My questions to you were entirely about the structure of the organization.

    Originally posted by stack View Post
    I honestly don't know what you mean. Show me the by-law you are referring to please.
    You can look up the word chair in your bylaws and see how many times it appears.

    Originally posted by stack View Post
    We are transparent. About everything.​ Our meeting minutes are posted publicly.
    I specifically asked about compensation information. Here is another example of transparency that you could do better on: It is best practice to add any corporate affiliations to every member in the governing body when listing them in the website. I recommend you do that.

    Originally posted by stack View Post
    It really isn't hard to find well-known and public examples of 501(c)(3)'s that were taken over by controlling entities..
    I am sure it is equally if not more easy to find corporations being taken over controlling entities. In fact the RESF current status already feels that way. A public foundation is required to state their revenue and expenses for example. RESF does not appear to be doing that.

    Leave a comment:


  • stack
    replied
    Originally posted by spicfoo View Post

    What am I saying is that when a corporation has a desire to hold on to the chair and VP position, that represents a clear conflict of interest if the desire is to be independent of any single corporation.
    I understand what you are saying. The Rocky community felt they were the best options for leadership and they were voted in. There have been multiple public instances already where Greg has made it known there was a conflict and he didn't vote on a topic. He could have; he didn't. Does Greg want CIQ to succeed? Yes. Does Greg want Rocky to succeed? Yes. Does he get to make decisions for Rocky to further CIQ goals to the detriment of the community? No. He doesn't hold that kind of power (nor is he that kind of man; he's really a nice guy). He doesn't have access to the password vaults. For whatever conflict of interest you are suggesting there may be, he has to still convince the Rocky team to do something and the Rocky team is focused on the community and committed to doing our best to uphold the promises we made to the community.

    The point I'm trying to get at is that I believe based on the way you've communicated thus far that you are over focusing on one or two individuals and ignoring the many other Rocky community members who are very actively supporting the project.


    Originally posted by spicfoo View Post
    ​Your guess has zero basis on reality. The fact that you so quickly jumped to a bad faith position instead of actually engaging in a discussion speaks volumes here. This is a public discussion. It isn't just about convincing me fyi.

    Zero basis? Quickly jumped? Literally every post you've made this thread to this point has either misrepresented CIQ or cast them in intentional negative light often telling only one very specific angle of the story. I stand by what I said.


    Originally posted by spicfoo View Post

    Your answer fails to explain why CIQ needs the chair and VP position with special privileges written into your bylaws.
    I honestly don't know what you mean. Show me the by-law you are referring to please.


    Originally posted by spicfoo View Post
    ​​
    If you want to establish your independence, your first step should be put a neutral people in such positions. Otherwise it looks like a shell game. Perception matters as much as reality in your governance model.
    The Rocky community will continue to vote in those that believe will lead the Rocky community the best for the Rocky community. We can't control the perception of others. The entire reason why I posted was because the article makes a claim which isn't true and yet has altered the perception of several people as evidenced in this thread alone. Reality matters. Truth matters. But ultimately, the work we are doing for the community and the many open source projects we contribute to - that's what will eventually show through the misinformation and FUD.

    Originally posted by spicfoo View Post
    ​​
    ​Are you willing to be transparent and publish reports on the activities of this organization including compensation details of RESF which is apparently structured as a Delaware corporation rather than a 501(c)(3) non profit foundation?


    We are transparent. About everything.​ Our meeting minutes are posted publicly. And as we've stated publicly before - we made the intentional decision to structure the way we did to have a better chance of legally protecting Rocky to ensure it remains a community project. It really isn't hard to find well-known and public examples of 501(c)(3)'s that were taken over by controlling entities. A 501(c)(3) simply doesn't have the same level of protections we felt were needed. Also, do note that many other projects are not 3's either - it's important to know the difference before comparing projects based on their tax status. Yes, this is a different path then other community projects but we hope to forge a path that ensures Rocky remains in community control for the entirety of it's existence. I'm not saying this is the best path or that any other path is wrong - just that we felt this was the best path for Rocky.

    Leave a comment:


  • spicfoo
    replied

    Originally posted by stack View Post
    There are numerous contributors to open source projects who work jobs where they use those tools (and other open source tools). Are you saying that situation is a conflict of interest?
    What am I saying is that when a corporation has a desire to hold on to the chair and VP position, that represents a clear conflict of interest if the desire is to be independent of any single corporation.

    Originally posted by stack View Post

    My guess is that it has almost nothing to do with such scenarios (of which there are SOOOO many other examples out there) but rather there's a personal grudge against Greg, Brian, CIQ, and/or all the above. And if you have a personal problem with Greg or Brian, that's not something I'm going to convince you otherwise (esp over forum posts).
    Your guess has zero basis on reality. The fact that you so quickly jumped to a bad faith position instead of actually engaging in a discussion speaks volumes here. This is a public discussion. It isn't just about convincing me fyi.

    Originally posted by stack View Post
    So let's look at the one semi-legitimate question in that post.
    Again, you don't get to unilaterally declare what is a (semi) legitimate question. Your answer fails to explain why CIQ needs the chair and VP position with special privileges written into your bylaws. If you want to establish your independence, your first step should be put a neutral people in such positions. Otherwise it looks like a shell game. Perception matters as much as reality in your governance model. Are you willing to be transparent and publish reports on the activities of this organization including compensation details of RESF which is apparently structured as a Delaware corporation rather than a 501(c)(3) non profit foundation?

    Leave a comment:


  • stack
    replied
    Originally posted by You- View Post
    Does that mean that a CIQ employee will spend the morning with his Rocky hat on, slagging off Red Hat for being closed source, betraying the community.

    And then in the evening release a press release with a CQID hat on, talking about how CIQ is providing subscriber only support to paying customers only as a great service to the community?

    You do realize that with such tone it's hard to read this as anything else but a troll, right? Or at the very least, you've got a story in your head in which you've already decided who the villains are without actually thinking through what impact the words you say have.

    I'm happy to answer legitimate questions, but I'm going to skip badly type mostly-incoherent rants going forward. It doesn't help anyone. I work on Rocky to help the community and vitriol like the above doesn't help anyone.


    Originally posted by spicfoo View Post
    I would love to hear from stack on how having the same person be the CEO of CIQ and chair of the Rocky Linux foundation does not represent any conflict of interest or explain how he can claim they are entirely independent and not influenced by a single corporation. How about Brian Clemens who is also sitting on the foundation as VP and is a CIQ employee?

    There are numerous contributors to open source projects who work jobs where they use those tools (and other open source tools). Are you saying that situation is a conflict of interest? If so, should all contributors step down from open source contribution when there's such a conflict of interest? Because there are a lot of projects out there that fit this mold. Are you complaining about them as well or do you just have a double standard against Rocky and/or CIQ? If you look (it shouldn't be too hard), you will even see that I've got past open source projects which I led while also working jobs that used those tools. What does it matter?

    My guess is that it has almost nothing to do with such scenarios (of which there are SOOOO many other examples out there) but rather there's a personal grudge against Greg, Brian, CIQ, and/or all the above. And if you have a personal problem with Greg or Brian, that's not something I'm going to convince you otherwise (esp over forum posts).


    So let's look at the one semi-legitimate question in that post.

    Originally posted by spicfoo View Post
    explain how he can claim they are entirely independent and not influenced by a single corporation.
    Per RESF's publicly available and well documented bylaws - no company can have more than 1/3 of the votes. Which means worst case scenario there are three entities who control all the votes. But that worst case scenario is completely unfounded from reality. As I explained before, neither board seats nor votes can be bought. Rocky members get one vote and that's it. To be a Rocky member, you must be active in the community. Thus, active contributing people from many countries with many different employers (or in several cases, retirees) decide on the leadership of RESF.

    There were multiple possibilities for our leadership and Rocky community members voted. The voting cycle is coming up and I don't know who is going to step down nor who wants to step-up nor who wants to stay another round. What I do know is that the Rocky membership will vote on the positions. Thus, Rocky and RESF remain independently in the control of the community and are not influenced by a single corporation.

    Whatever influences you may attribute to CIQ, they are balanced by at least 2/3 of non-CIQ people who care about Rocky. And that's if you can only ever look at CIQ as a negative. I can tell you first hand that ALL those working on Rocky really care passionately about making sure Rocky continues and that we stay true to the promises we made. Those who work for CIQ but volunteer much of their free time for an open source community distro are not the villains trolls so desperately want them to be - they are passionate open source people. Nearly all of us are involved in multiple Open Source projects on our own free time - of which many are not EL related.

    Rocky Linux is an EL distro for the community made by the community and led by the community.

    Leave a comment:


  • liamnal
    replied
    Originally posted by You- View Post
    Does that mean that a CIQ employee will spend the morning with his Rocky hat on, slagging off Red Hat for being closed source, betraying the community.

    And then in the evening release a press release with a CQID hat on, talking about how CIQ is providing subscriber only support to paying customers only as a great service to the community?
    That's a Greg thing only. I've said it many times before, the RESF would do great if it became a 501c and when voting comes around to keep ensure that Greg and Brian do not have a seat any longer. Everyone knows they're problem children. It's just unfortunate that those two lack the self awareness to realize this and there are people who drink their koolaid on a daily basis.

    Leave a comment:


  • spicfoo
    replied
    Originally posted by You- View Post
    Does that mean that a CIQ employee will spend the morning with his Rocky hat on, slagging off Red Hat for being closed source, betraying the community.

    And then in the evening release a press release with a CQID hat on, talking about how CIQ is providing subscriber only support to paying customers only as a great service to the community?
    I would love to hear from stack on how having the same person be the CEO of CIQ and chair of the Rocky Linux foundation does not represent any conflict of interest or explain how he can claim they are entirely independent and not influenced by a single corporation. How about Brian Clemens who is also sitting on the foundation as VP and is a CIQ employee?

    Leave a comment:


  • You-
    replied
    Does that mean that a CIQ employee will spend the morning with his Rocky hat on, slagging off Red Hat for being closed source, betraying the community.

    And then in the evening release a press release with a CQID hat on, talking about how CIQ is providing subscriber only support to paying customers only as a great service to the community?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X