[I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
heard.)
On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
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.
A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but the
perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the
project, replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next
version. This is how it's been described to me by several different
members of the project community, and their perception is that this has
been done without the consent of the community. This is, of course, a
fairly serious accusation.
Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased
on who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate
affiliation - an even more serious accusation.
The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being
imported into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by
virtue of a majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel that
their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
suggested.
1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it
the next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see
that this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the
code be taken to the incubator.)
--
Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
