Exactly. Thanks!
Hadrian
On 04/20/2015 07:50 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
HornetQ can incubate (as the chosen code name) with full intentions of
graduating as a sub project. No rework would be required.
We would obviously strongly encourage members from AMQ to assist with the
mentoring.
John
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:16 PM James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
wrote:
For what it's worth, I agree with Hadrian that HornetQ should go to the
incubator. The fact that I gave up on pushing the issue doesn't mean I
don't think that's the right course of action. It just didn't seem like it
was going to happen.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:46 PM Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Uhm, what were we doing for the past 2 weeks? On two lists, multiple
threads?
I assume you are aware of my recommendation to have hornetq grow
independently in the incubator. That proposal was rejected, but no
reason given besides that the RH engineers would have to do the work
twice. My request was to include that in the report (or whatever other
reason might exist). The way it looks is that Fuse/RH/(the Damarillo
group), anyway you want to describe that faction is dead set on
replacing the existing ActiveMQ with HornetQ (or whatever code name) in
version 6 or 10. By keeping HornetQ under the ActiveMQ PMC influence its
future will be heavily influenced by the already biased PMC and at the
same time hide the lack of diversity in HornetQ. In the incubator,
HornetQ will have the opportunity and freedom to grow in any direction
and build a diverse community.
Since there is all this concern about the viral nature of the plan, why
not allow HornetQ to take its course, build more diversity in the
ActiveMQ community (actually both) and influence it based on technical
merits instead of abundance of votes?
Does that clarify my request?
Hadrian
On 04/20/2015 05:51 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
Agreed, we need to get this report published/submitted, so time is off
the
essence here.
Hadrian, you have raised some points that you would like to have
included
in the report, but nobody can read your mind. Please add your points to
the
report so that others can see them and discuss them ASAP.
Bruce
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com
wrote:
So we are running into a time crunch here. I'm hoping all the PMC
members will pitch in and apply any edits to the report they deem
necessary. Many thanks to those who have helped out. Seems like some
folks are still now happy with it, so that's why have held off in
sending it so that they get a chance to add their input. But your
right, I do have to send this in before the 22nd so really today is
the last day I can hold off so that I can send it on the 21st so that
the board has at least 24 hours to review before their meeting.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com>
wrote:
One more thing. It's the responsibility of the PMC chair to provide a
timely
report to the board. It's entirely his choice how he wants to go
about
it,
what he decides to include and what to leave out. The report should
be
published in a timely manner though, so that comments (usually from
the
board) could be addressed before the meeting.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 04/20/2015 05:23 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Ok so, then it sounds like your ok with the report the way it is
right
now.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <
hzbar...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I have nothing to write. There were some claims made that were not
substantiate. My request was for the party that made the claims to
provide
an explanation.
I cannot explain somebody else's point of view. I can explain my
views
if
anybody requires it.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 04/20/2015 02:39 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hadrian, please write up what you want to include in the board
report
that way the rest of the PMC can review.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <
hzbar...@gmail.com>
wrote:
First, the report is late. Second, I don't think it addresses the
problems.
Third, I made a request to please include in the report an
explanation
about
why hornetq moving to the incubator is a non-starter for Fuse
crowd.
It
is
very frustrating that requests get ignored.
Hadrian
On 04/20/2015 02:16 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Are they any other updates folks want to make to this report?
Please
apply your updates soon. The board meets on the 22nd and I'd
like
to
submit the report on the 21st at the latest.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Hiram Chirino
<hi...@hiramchirino.com>
wrote:
Hi guys. The board requested a report this month and had some
specific questions around the hornetq code donation. I've put
up a
first cut a report on the Wiki at:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=55155578
Hopefully we can finish off the code donation naming vote soon
a
report that too.
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchir...@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchir...@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
