John thanks for the link to the actual naming issue that is part of the larger point. There is a serious naming issue here - ASF products can’t be named the same thing as a Big Company’s products. We don’t do that without donation and/or having the product be in compliance with the naming guidelines from Trademarks and its committee. Bringing trademarks@ in to the conversation now which should have been done by this PMC long ago. The fact that it wasn’t is troubling.
I think that the PMC needs a full report at the next board meeting. CC’ing board@ as I may or may not be a Director when that happens but it should be picked up by the newly elected board. Cheers, Chris -----Original Message----- From: "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 5:52 AM To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation >On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:20 PM Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> >wrote: > >> If it needs to happen, growing a community in an existing >> Apache project that has been around for quite a while is >> not something I would recommend for a variety of reasons. >> >> Note we recently went through a similar thought >> on OODT/Wings with the prevailing sentiment from me and >> a few others being suggesting Wings either goes through >> Incubation at the ASF or remain at Github until there is >> an actual connection (direct) between Wings and OODT such >> that they are complimentary products and “bound” together >> (aka you can’t release one without the other). >> >> Here are a few reasons: >> >> 1. Binding the products together on a committee requires >> that the committee (PMC) have merit in each other’s products. >> I don’t see that starting off at least. I see you have >> VOTEd to add the HornetQ committers into the PMC. That’s >> a good step but doesn’t seem (though the VOTE passed) to >> have consensus based on feedback I’ve seen. >> >> 2. Having mutual products together also potentially binds >> their release cycle - sure we can release as a committee >> “independent products”, but there is then scrutiny and >> sometimes “forced” instead of “natural” binding glue >> developed between the software products if it wasn’t there >> already. >> >> 3. IP clearance; brand; trademarks etc are things that >> the PMC can do, but that things like the Incubator is set >> up to help (or even direct to TLP options that are now >> available [see Zest]). I see you guys are working through >> the IP clearance. >> >> There are many more reasons that “umbrella” projects didn’t >> work out at the ASF and are generally discouraged. I wouldn’t >> recommend turning ActiveMQ into one. >> >> Instead, I would recommend the following: >> >> R1. HornetQ through the Incubator >> R2. Mentors include the ActiveMQ community PMC members that >> are ASF or IPMC members >> R3. HornetQ consider a few ActiveMQ PMC/committers in its >> initial PPMC makeup to develop synergy between the groups, >> and to see if there are answers to 1-3 and more to be worked >> out during Incubation. >> >> If the result of R1-R3 yields a desire to “graduate into >> ActiveMQ” the answers to the questions 1-3 above will have >> been worked out and it will be a much easier answer then. >> >> Cheers, >> Chris >> > >Personally, this is what I would have preferred to see happen, as a past >and present user of both HornetQ and ActiveMQ. > >Internally to Apache, I know that there are several projects looking for a >JMS 2.0 implementation. Heck, that's why I went through the pain of >ensuring that we had a JMS 2.0 spec JAR available for use, we need to see >it happen. I had previously opened a request to have a JMS 2.0 >implementation in the ActiveMQ 5.x suite, it's not a huge change (I >believe >all features are already available, just need some new client APIs) yet >the >feedback I received was that the HornetQ donation would take care of it. >While that's fine, why didn't an issue like this thread come up at that >point? It hasn't been a secret that the HornetQ team was planning to >release as ActiveMQ 6 (the snapshot JARs have shown that for a while). > >With regard to Chris' proposed next steps, we can still have the ActiveMQ >project as the sponsoring entity, and if it's decided that when HornetQ's >ready to graduate that they want to come in as the new core broker for >ActiveMQ, that should be well accepted by the community (obviously via >vote). Going through the incubation process will allow HornetQ to cut >releases under ASF guidelines without disturbing its neighbors. > >The sticking point's going to come down to name. I don't see Red Hat >shutting off the HornetQ project ( http://hornetq.jboss.org/ ) so a name >would need to be chosen - the fact that HornetQ is running under Apache >isn't even referenced on the site. > >If you guys choose to go the incubator route, I'd be happy to throw my hat >in as a mentor to get you going. > >John > > >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: artnaseef <a...@artnaseef.com> >> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> >> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 9:05 AM >> To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation >> >> >Growing the community around HornetQ is the same issue regardless of >>the >> >naming - it needs to happen, and just naming it ActiveMQ 6 doesn't >>really >> >change anything other than to create the presumption that HornetQ will >> >succeed as ActiveMQ 6. >> > >> >Sharing a direction across the community is important, and making sure >> >that >> >direction is clear is also important. In that light, I am very glad >>to be >> >having this discussion. >> > >> >The statement "Neglecting to commit to a direction will leave ActiveMQ >> >rudderless" is valid, but does not decide that direction. Nor does it >> >mean >> >that a complete restart of ActiveMQ is the right direction. >> > >> >So, let's put this back into perspective. >> > >> >We have the HornetQ donation to ActiveMQ. To what benefit for the >> >ActiveMQ >> >community? Age of the solution is not a compelling argument (consider >> >that >> >Java is even older than ActiveMQ). >> > >> >ActiveMQ continues to be very widely used and supported. It serves >> >mission-critical functions in large companies across multiple >>industries, >> >and even supports critical government infrastructure in many places. >> > >> >Only time will tell if HornetQ is up to the task on all fronts: >>strength >> >of >> >technology; community to maintain, support, and advocate the >>technology; >> >ease of installation, use, and monitoring; etc. Therefore, a >>presumption >> >that it will replace an existing, proven solution is premature. >> > >> >Really, the merits here are hard to argue because I'm not seeing any >>valid >> >merits described. >> > >> >I keep wondering, "what problem are we solving?" Please help me to >> >understand this and how the HornetQ donation solves the problem. >> > >> > >> > >> >-- >> >View this message in context: >> >http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-HornetQ- >> ActiveMQ-s-next-gene >> >ration-tp4693781p4693805.html >> >Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >>
