I'm also fine to switch my vote to +1. I just wanted to clarify the voting principles.
Regards JB On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 6:27 PM Christopher Shannon < [email protected]> wrote: > That's a good point JB, I'd consider it a code change so I'll just > switch my vote to +1. > > I think it's fine and I don't really care too much especially with > Matt doing the work :) Also, I think we may need to do more protobuf > work coming up as we modernize things anyways. > > Chris > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 12:00 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Matt > > > > Are you sure here? > > > > If we consider this vote is for a code modification: in this scenario, a > > negative vote constitutes a veto, which the voting group (generally the > PMC > > of a project) cannot override. Under normal (non-lazy consensus) > > conditions, the proposal requires three +1 votes and no -1 votes in order > > to pass; if it fails to garner the requisite amount of support, it > doesn't. > > Then the proposer either withdraws the proposal or modifies the code and > > resubmits it, or the proposal simply languishes as an open issue until > > someone gets around to removing it. > > > > That's described here: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > > > My take here is that we are in code modification case, right ? > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 4:58 PM Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Completing this vote with lazy consensus and I will move forward with > > > merging the activemq-protobuf PR into main for v6.3.0. > > > > > > Vote total: > > > 1 (binding - Matt Pavlovich) > > > 2 (+0 - JB, CShannon, and sorta Justin via the [DISCUSS] thread) > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Matt Pavlovich > > > > > > > On Apr 6, 2026, at 11:23 AM, Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > This vote is to host the activemq-protobuf modules in the main > > > apache/activemq source tree. > > > > > > > > This would target v6.3.0 > > > > > > > > Benefits > > > > 1. Align version number with the release > > > > 2. Easier alignment of JDK language and runtime compatibly (current > code > > > needs clean-up to remove WARNs on compile) > > > > 3. Future change to consolidate redundant I/O related classes across > the > > > project — ASCIIBuffer, UTF8Buffer, *Stream classes, etc. > > > > 4. Ability to update the format as needed for future enhancements and > > > features (ie add a serial number of active-active replication, etc) > > > > 5. Initially, no change to Maven coordinates. Only version number to > > > align w/ broker release(s) > > > > > > > > Here is my +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Matt Pavlovich > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact > > >
