Except that the discussion was started weeks ago and questions are
constantly ignored.
Hadrian
On 04/20/2015 07:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:41 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.
We've had lots folks from different companies agree with the direction
that code contribution is going in. The fact that pin it on
'Fuse/RH/(the Damarillo group)' is very disingenuous and I think a
poisonous position to take. I guess we just need to agree to disagree
on this point.
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?
Please start a discussion thread with your proposal and lets see if
consensus can be built around it. This is how it's normally done.
You can't just complain that you don't agree with how things are going
and then cry that some evil conspiracy is underway.
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
