My 2 cents. When it comes to code, I find that there is a lot more concern when things are talked about in the abstract. Once you have the new code and show how it is integrated, if it is way better than the current stuff, then there really isn’t a problem. If it is not better, or just a big side step, it should be obvious, and you change it or abandon the effort. (code is always the simple part)
As for the community, we’ve had similar problems in the past (especially in Geronimo). The solution is to get more people involved in coding. IMO, without that, there is not much that can be done to reduce the influence of a single company (or clique). In my experience, adding more PMC members isn’t help much if they are not actively coding (other then people realize the PMC list has virtually no traffic). The ones that code make “on-the-ground” decisions that really move the project. The big problem is that it is difficult to new grassroots coders and this is doubly true when you have a community that is responsive to problems, because they remove the desire to “fix your own problem”. That said, I agree with Rich, invite more people to the PMC, and if names are a problem, change them. You can always change the name back later if everyone likes the new stuff better. -dain On Mar 27, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > [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
