Thoughts from last meeting

[seth vidal]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 09:33:11 -0500
Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net> wrote:

> Once upon a time, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> said:
> > larger offering from Red Hat, EPEL providing piranha + ipvsadm which
> > comprise the Load Balancer Add-On is a much bigger concern to me. I
> > don't really think EPEL should put Red Hat in the position of having
> > to ask for it to be removed. So unless we know that including such
> > things is fine with Red Hat in advance I think we should exclude
> > them as EPEL providing complete "layered products" or "Red Hat
> > Enterprise Linux Add-Ons" seems like crossing a line we shouldn't
> > cross to me.
> 
> Um, it is all Open Source software, so if a third party (EPEL or
> somebody else) wants to also provide it, Red Hat doesn't really have a
> leg to stand on asking it to be removed.  You are perfectly within
> your rights to purchase RHEL entitlements and load whatever software
> you want, even software that Red Hat offers to support at additional
> cost, without paying them any more money (you just won't get any
> support for it).
> 
> If you don't like that, then don't use EPEL (or any other third party
> software repository).
> 


I think the point here is that no one wants to take a 'tough luck'
position or any such dramatic statements. We're providing software
packages to people who are, overwhelmingly, running servers that need
to be stable. They are just looking for stability and consistency.

So I think we don't want to make any dramatic statements about whether
or not red hat has a right to ask to have something removed. 1. it is
probably unnecessary 2. it just doesn't help our core user base.

which is why I like Jon's proposal - it's simple and doesn't involve
dramatic statements of any kind. It's how I would like my own servers
to run: low key and straightforward.

-sv