@Justin, In terms of consensus it depends on what it is with Apache. I know for releases you just need a majority vote but for code modifications a -1 by a PMC member is a veto.
In this case I'm not entirely sure but I think the -1 votes in this thread would be considered a veto unless they are changed. See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > @Jeff: > > All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future. > > We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and release > whenever it was ready. > > We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would drive > people using it.. etc.. etc.. > > Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption, and > there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the > website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help at > all!!!). > > If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the > website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before > starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into > here). > > Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda > items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That > answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you > used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on > where we will get. > > > So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more > prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get? > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <jgenen...@apache.org> wrote: > > There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying agenda > as > > you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies. > Sorry, > > just calling a spade a spade. Its definitely bringing back the > > knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago. That's a shame > and > > I really hope that is not the direction this is going. > > > > This is a PR vote that also becomes technical. It's PR because some > folks > > are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now. Its technical > > because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from > AMQ5. > > I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever) is > > being deprecated", but guess what? Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means its > > the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the old. > > Remember AMQ3->4->5. Its an assumption that has been made on numerical > > versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's > > technical. It does make illusions of deprecation. So this is both PR > *and* > > technical. > > > > My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately > > becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has > reasonable > > compatibility with AMQ5. NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic > > stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5, > > which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of > our > > community. > > > > The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very > reasonable. > > Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line so > > that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version. Why is that > > viewed as so unreasonable? > > > > I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming and > > vendors and versions. This is a problem because there is an agenda and > > there is cross marketing going on. Look at this blog: > > > > https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w > hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/ > > > > Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo: > > > > https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/ > artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/ > > > > Is it 2 or is it 7? Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ? This repo has a numbering > > with our name on it, but is it even our code? So when I hear people in > the > > community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh? There is no > > ActiveMQ 7". After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss AMQ > 7. > > > > So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do with > > vendors, but lets be honest. This has everything to do with vendors and > > this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it. At the end of the day > and > > in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with this. > > But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately > clouds > > this immensely. > > > > So I ask this. It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers here > are > > ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6. They are asking a > > relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption > and > > get it more compatible before renaming it? That makes this non-technical > > once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ 6. > > IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ > and > > why it was named Artemis to begin with. > > > > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when > > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat > it > > too. > > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404. > html > > > > -- > Clebert Suconic >
