Hi Jim, I did request this from the project, so yes, +1.
Cheers, Chris -----Original Message----- From: Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org> Date: Friday, March 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM To: Apache Board <bo...@apache.org> Cc: <dev@activemq.apache.org> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation >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 >> >
