On Jan 17, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Robert Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Not sure what a vote would accomplish that this discussion hasn’t already >> shown. It looks to me like there is consensus to move the console to a >> sub project thing (I suppose a vote on that might make sense to verify), but >> it also looks like there is at least one PMC member that feels there needs >> to be a distribution similar to what you have today that includes it. I’m >> not sure a vote would change that (but I could be wrong). >> >> Remember, Apache communities are NOT democracies, they are consensus driven >> communities. Votes should be used just to test/verify consensus. (other >> than release votes, they are different) If a consensus cannot be achieved, >> then status quo remains. In other words, if you cannot find the common >> ground that everyone CAN agree on, then nothing will change and what you >> have today remains. Just keep that in mind. Pushing hard for things that >> are highly unlikely to obtain consensus will just result in heated and >> unpleasant arguments which can harm the community. > > More of a poll than a vote - and you haven’t seen what is says yet! Since you don’t want me to respond on the poll thread….. IMO, just rebranding for #3 is not enough, but is certainly the first and most obvious part…. The Apache ActiveMQ community needs to be in complete control over how the ActiveMQ part is presented to the user which would include the documentation on the ActiveMQ web site, the code to process the ActiveMQ data in the ActiveMQ git repo, etc…. So, in order for #3 to happen, I think the hawt.io community would have to be willing to donate those parts to ActiveMQ. That something that would need to be taken up with them. -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
