I can't recall, but did we (the board) request a special report from AMQ next meeting to discuss this? If not, maybe we should.
> On Mar 27, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Dain Sundstrom <d...@iq80.com> wrote: > > 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 >
