[You seem to have a tendency to make everything into the worst case for Red Hat. Why is that?]
You are misjudging my position. Red Hat is an excellent example of a sane and pragmatic company which has not become so jaded, self-absorbed, and preoccupied with short term trivialities, not to see the big picture. But they are not going to blurt out information that could land them in court, damage them, their shareholders, their sizable market cap, their reputation, etc. as long as it can be avoided. It's the difference between being a smart and pragmatic company that does a lot of good, and being a saint.
I don't paint Red Hat as being saintly, and some people choose to interpret that as negativity. I use Red Hat derived distros almost exclusively in my consulting work, though I now use Ubuntu on my own desktop. (RHEL and CentOS just 'click' for business use.) I do tend to be critical of Fedora. But that is because, in my opinion, there is more to be critical about when it comes to recent Fedora releases. (I begin to see this on servers that have to handle more than about 16 simultaneous desktops. Not so much on the smaller ones. But the problems are embarrassing.) Other than that the software versions are not cutting edge, it is extremely hard for me to come up with anything critical to say about RHEL and CentOS. If you look at my overall posting history regarding Red Hat, rather than focusing upon those pertaining to this 'infrastructure issue', I think you will see that I am actually a big Red Hat fan. Just without being a *fanboy*.