Martyn, you continue to misrepresent things.
When we say RH on this thread it's pretty clear what it means. It was
said before, we prefer to use this term to refer to a group that does
have an agenda. There are a few people who refuse to have conversations
that ignore the elephant in the room.
So, RH. I have nothing but respect for RedHat Software, Inc. I have
friends over there, I know its culture, I was invited to some of its
events, I *recommend* some of its products. Great company, friendly to
open source, sponsor of the ASF.
The RH clique in this thread refers to a group of people who, in my
experience, are pushing an agenda. You claim that Artemis has fantastic
technical merits. Fine. In the open source world, pay attention, value
is given by adoption. Not by marketing materials, not by what managers
say, *adoption*! ActiveMQ proved that, Camel did, Karaf did, CXF did.
Heck, HTTPD did, Hadoop+Spark big data ecosystem, Maven, they all did,
by getting adoption.
HornetQ/Artemis has its chance, it's on equal footing. All this
conversation points to a belief of the said clique that lives in an echo
chamber that the *only* way to get adoption for Artemis is to steal the
ActiveMQ name, buy replacing it. The only tool said clique has (and had)
is overwhelming veto power in the PMC (Bruce mentioned it yesterday that
technically the vote could pass, but he knows very well what would
happen next). I asked you, and the -1s got reversed in an amusing way,
if you want to grow Artemis inside or outside the ActiveMQ community. So
you don't want to go TLP (I expected that) because like I was told in
the past what you want is the ActiveMQ brand. And the more sad reason
for that (I know outraged replies will follow), is that the issue is you
promising something to your managers and thy bought into your ideas the
hinge on stealing (basically) ActiveMQ. It's not RedHat Software, Inc's
fault, it's all on you. And now you're in a bind. Even scarier is that
the market, see AWS seems, to validate the value of ActiveMQ (the real
one, 5.x).
So, I dare you to prove me wrong, and prove the Artemis value by
increasing adoption. Bonus points for doing it without abusing the
ActiveMQ brand. Or you can try abusing of your voting power. But you'd
gain more respect from building technology of undeniable value, like
many of the ASF projects.
Hadrian
On 12/07/2017 06:26 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the accusations made in this
thread.
After the last round of accusations of Red Hat are pushing through their
own agenda, I'm sad to see it happening again. I continue to use my Red
Hat email address in public discussions, in my PR requests and review.
I've nothing to hide nor am I ashamed to be employed by a company like Red
Hat. My legions lie with ActiveMQ and making the project and community a
better place. I've put so much personal and emotional effort into this
project. To have my votes and opinions abrogated just because I work for a
certain company I find shocking and not at all democratic.
Actually, looking back through this vote thread to the people who voted +1,
who were accused of pushing an alternate agenda are actually the same
people who I see involved in the community on a day to day basis. The same
people fixing bugs, answering user questions and doing releases. And
they're not all employed by the same company.
If people want to vote -1 to this, fair enough you're entitled to your vote
and I have no issue. But, all this talk about companies pushing an agenda,
seems to me to be a bit of a guise to detract away from the actual subject
in hand. TBH, I am sick of hearing about it.
I respect the result of the vote.
I am -1 on the idea of making Artemis TLP.
I am +1 on Bruce's suggestion on creating a Roadmap. I think this is
really what we need right now.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Michael André Pearce <
[email protected]> wrote:
On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an overhaul
and design inline with the new logo.
Mike
Sent from my iPhone
On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder <[email protected]> wrote:
I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take on
this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more
prominent
on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
separate discussion around this.
More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
Bruce
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <
[email protected]>
wrote:
Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this
thread:
- All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
- Refactor the website... like.. now... with Artemis being brought
forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
... any volunteers here?
... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the confluent
wiki.
- Have more discussions on the dev list
--
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
