On Jan 21, 2014, at 5:16 PM, Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> inline > > On 21 January 2014 17:36, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: > >> The goals of the Apache communities needs to be to make sure developers are >> driven into the Apache communities, not another community. > Any goal that hopes to drive developers is a non starter. Developers > choose, they are not driven. That’s completely BS. If I download “activemq-###.tar.gz” from ActiveMQ’s website and I run the startup scripts and such that are documented in that bundle and I find a problem that directly pertains to ActiveMQ, I COMPLETELY expect to be able to go to ActiveMQ’s JIRA and log an issue. I also completely expect to be able to do a “git clone” of ActiveMQ’s repo, diagnose the problem, and submit a patch back to ActiveMQ. If I’m in the *ActiveMQ* console provided/endorsed by the ActiveMQ community and I see that my message is displaying wrong or the data isn’t displaying correctly or the column sizes aren’t taking things into consideration properly or similar, then I, as a developer, completely expect that I can contribute patches to ActiveMQ to fix that. Again, the download needs to drive developers to ActiveMQ, not an external community. Also, the documentation around how to use what is provided by ActiveMQ needs to be on the ActiveMQ web site. Any errors in that documentation should be handled by the ActiveMQ community. Patches for the documentation should go through ActiveMQ’s process. Dan > I am suggesting we make a sensible choice > that helps our community by giving it a better web ui. hawtio wants to > have the best activemq web console, we want to ship the best activemq > console. The stars are aligned. If the alignment falters we address > that. > >> >>> We don't have to own everything that makes activemq better and that >>> makes our users experience better, we just have to ensure that it is >>> better. >> >> Making the user experience better is certainly an important aspect of the >> Apache communities, but the primary focus should be on making sure the >> developer community is healthy and we aren’t driving potential developers >> elsewhere. That NEEDS to be the most important thing at this point, >> especially with the current active makeup of this community. >> >> In particular, since Apache is a 503b charitable non-profit foundation, we >> cannot be used to promote other communities, particularly those “owned” by a >> for-profit entity. (open source or otherwise, that’s somewhat irrelevant) >> >> Anyway, as far as *I’m* concerned (but I’m not a member of this PMC, just an >> interested party), if the hawt.io community is unwilling or unable to >> support the ActiveMQ community to allow ActiveMQ to maintain control over >> it’s user experience, then there is no-point engaging with them. It is a >> waste of time. >> >> That said, if hawt.io community want to create a full distribution of >> ActiveMQ + hawt.io to make life easier for users, they certainly are welcome >> to do so as long as it’s not branded ActiveMQ. (and again, not something to >> be promoted here) >> >> Dan >> >> >>> If the hawt.io community is unwilling (or unable) to do the second part, >>> then, IMO, #3 is a non-starter. If they ARE willing to do that, then >>> great. Lets start figuring out how to get that done. But that’s >>> something that would need to be discussed on their side first. >>>> >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> There are a lot of 0s and +1s for option [3] and two -1s >>>>> >>>>> Let me make a case for it to try and get consensus around it. >>>>> >>>>> I want to 'replace' the existing web console with something better. >>>>> For configuration activemq did not build a dependency injection >>>>> framework, we shipped spring. >>>>> Learning from that, it does not make sense to me that we build and >>>>> maintain a html5 web console. >>>>> >>>>> An admin/management web front end based over our extensive JMX api >>>>> sounds perfect but it needs >>>>> a community to evolve and improve it. We (activemq committers) have >>>>> proven that we need help in that area. >>>>> >>>>> Anyone what to change their vote or further expand on the technical >>>>> reasons we should not be branding hatwio? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 17 January 2014 13:33, Robert Davies <rajdav...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> I want to take a straw poll to see where everyone stands, because >>>>>> opinion has varied, mine included. Straw polls can be a useful tool to >>>>>> move towards consensus. This isn’t a formal vote, but to reduce the >>>>>> noise, can we keep it to binding votes only ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Have one distribution with no default console, but make it easy to >>>>>> deploy a console on demand (the original console - or 3rd party ones). >>>>>> 2. Have two separate distributions, one with no console - and have a >>>>>> second distribution with the original console >>>>>> 3. One distribution, with hawtio as the console - ActiveMQ branded. >>>>>> 4. One distribution, but uses the original ActiveMQ console only. >>>>>> >>>>>> Here’s my vote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [1]. +1 >>>>>> [2] 0 >>>>>> [3] 0 >>>>>> [4] -1 >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rob >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> http://redhat.com >>>>> http://blog.garytully.com >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Daniel Kulp >>>> dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog >>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> http://redhat.com >>> http://blog.garytully.com >> >> -- >> Daniel Kulp >> dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com >> > > > > -- > http://redhat.com > http://blog.garytully.com -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
