According to the ASF Voting page ( https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html):
'Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of the number of votes in each category. ' However, given that there are some binding -1s, I believe it is in everyone's best interest to stop this vote and prepare a plan to move forward as a group. In the interest of moving forward as a group, I have created a page specifically for the Artemis Roadmap here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/ActiveMQ+Artemis+Roadmap I encourage everyone to contribute to this page and discuss it in a separate discussion thread on the dev@activemq list. I will start a separate discussion for this topic now. Bruce On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Shannon < christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > @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 > > > -- perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );' ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
