On 03/27/2015 12:10 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
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.
Yes, Chris requested that in the first message that was CC'ed Board.
--Rich
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
--
Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
