Hi Hiram, It’s much more than removing references. Please see:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/ It’s also an involved process that needs to include committees like trademarks@, etc. We need to involve people and the PMC in particular needs to work with the appropriate committees. That’s a PMC’s job. Cheers, Chris -----Original Message----- From: Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> Reply-To: "bo...@apache.org" <bo...@apache.org> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 9:02 AM To: Apache Board <bo...@apache.org> Cc: ActiveMQ-Developers <dev@activemq.apache.org>, Apache Brand Management <tradema...@apache.org> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation >Hi Chris, > >If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think >you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been >removed/replaced by ActiveMQ. So I think we are ok from a TM >perspective. > >On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> >wrote: >> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > > > >-- >Hiram Chirino >Engineering | Red Hat, Inc. >hchir...@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com >skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
