On 12/06/2017 11:08 AM, Christopher Shannon wrote:
Hadrian,
In my opinion the AWS argument actually proves the point more than ever
that we need to clarify the status of the project.
I fully understand your point, but first it has to be clarified
internally, not externally. Ages ago it was very clarified and stated
publicly that Apollo is the future ActiveMQ 6 and it will be fantastic.
Written in Scala it would have unparalleled performance and be something
the world has never seen (and btw, Hiram poured pure magic into Apollo,
brilliant work). There are users/companies who invested in that,
believing in what was advertised by the ActiveMQ community. Not a good
investment, not good for the reputation of the ActiveMQ community.
I, personally, do not believe the "yes, but this time it will be
different" argument and have more respect for the markets. Let's prove
it first and then we can announce whatever.
Amazon didn't consult anyone form this community as far as I am aware.
This is my feeling as well.
They probably chose to use 5.x precisely because they didn't know what the
plan was with Artemis. If it was more clear that Artemis was going to be
the future then maybe they would have used it instead of 5.x
I don't think so. Like the *vast* majority of users, they don't make
choices based on interacting with the community. They do research,
figure out what people say, look at trends, see what 'experts' blog
about, see if there is diversity in support, whatever metrics they
choose, depending on their experience with open source (and AWS are no
amateurs, as we know). I doubt that that an "official statement of
intent" would have changed Amazon's decision driven by market metrics
(again, they're no amateurs), regardless of what we may convince
ourselves to believe. Do you have any factual reason to believe otherwise?
So let's increase Artemis' adoption based on its technical merits. Then
it won't matter how it's called. But let's not disrupt the marketplace
and piggyback adoption on the success of the ActiveMQ brand with PR stunts.
I understand people have visions, aspirations desires and all. That's
great. As a community, however, we are making commitment based on
consensus. That's the Apache Way.
I understand the vision and the intent, I don't think the community is
ready to make a commitment based on that vision. I think I am not alone
in believing that. I understand that others have different views and I
respect that.
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/06/2017 10:56 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
Perhaps we need to clarify what is being proposed with very explicit
statements and recast the vote?
What would that change? Do you have any doubts that people understood what
the vote is for and voted accordingly?
Bruce
