> So, I guess my point is that they already have a workflow
> similar to the one you recommend.
Having repos and a bugtracker isn't enough for having a workflow... (btw I rather "suggested" rather than "recommended" that, since it usually takes some time of doing/using something myself to recommend that)
> Given the popularity of CentOS, it's good reputation
> because it has a goal and it sticks to it
I'd rather say its popularity/reputation is >99% a job of redhat.com folks (development, packaging, QA, security response) and <1% a job of centos.org folks. Not to put down those who finally managed to create "the" RH clone but to put things in perspective.
> I don't think they really need any advice from you...
I don't think they'll take any.
> Perhaps you could advise them?
I'd probably better care for 32 ALT bugs assigned to myself (looks like that's almost minimum of them usually) than chasing clones and advising them to be a bit more like humans :) rather ranting... I don't consider clones a viable point of considerable development having watched ASP Linux for many years with my 5-years-old predictions coming true one after another, and having begun my Linux practice with WGS Linux Pro back in RH4 days. :)