That was my understanding too. Especially, the initial vote email says
"Note that this vote is only about the Geroniom Server but NOT about the shared components. Those components will be further maintained - or moved to a different project later." Which to me goes against your point #3. 2017-09-08 23:10 GMT+02:00 David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com>: > Moving the thread over here so we’re all on the same page. > > > On Sep 8, 2017, at 3:28 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:45 AM David Blevins <david.blev...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: > > > > > > +1 for going forward > > > > > > Note that I also totally understand Davids concerns about the public > perception about Geronimo and that people still think we talk about the > G-Server. > > > To mitigate this problem I pushed forward with retiring the GServer > part and move the Geronimo project to become an umbrella for Enterprise > Java Components. And of course if the VOTE succeeds, then we will quickly > also pimp the geronimo.a.o site to reflect the EOL state of GServer. > > > > > > @David, is that fine for you? > > > > I’ll be honest and say I feel a bit steam rolled. The “is this ok with > you” sent 5 minutes after the vote already started. Vote closed sharply at > 72 hours almost to the minute. I was home in WI on labor day weekend > visiting family for the first time in 2 years. > > > > I'm a bit confused. Which vote are you referring to? The decision to > retire Geronimo Server did close that weekend, but that feels very straight > forward, were you saying we shouldn't have retired it? > > I’ll try to be as clear as possible, let me know if you understand even if > you don’t agree. I’m ok with disagreement as long as I know there’s > understanding. > > Effectively there were two things voted on, and to some an implied third. > > 1. Retire Geronimo Server. This is an easy +1 for me. We should have > been clear with users and done that years ago. > > 2. Make Geronimo an “EE Commons”. I’m +0 on that. Having battled to > change the perception of EJB for 15+ years, I’m sensitive to the cost and > not excited to repeat that over the next 5 years attempting to convince > people “Geronimo” isn’t an app server anymore. I understand others are up > for the challenge, so I won’t stand in the way, I even applaud the spirit, > so +0 rather than -0. It is zero, however, as I don’t plan personally to > start new projects here for the reasons stated. Despite not having it in > me to push heavily for a Geronimo rebirth, I’ll help with what I can and > want nothing but the best. It is, after all, a major part of my life and > history and more strong Apache projects is never a bad thing. > > 3. [implied] Block other projects from having reusable “EE Components”. > I’m -1 on that. Not everyone who voted has this in mind, but I am seeing > yield and stop signs being thrown up at attempts for people in TomEE to > create reusable EE components. The vote or discussions here being used to > more or less say “we” have decided for all of Apache that no other project > should be allowed to do anything similar and if they are they’re hurting > Apache. Paraphrasing, I’ve seen “we agreed to do it in Geronimo, why are > you attempting to move forward elsewhere” has been said to me at least 3 > times over the last 2 months, even before a vote. > > Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would specifically like the > words “we agreed” to be avoided on #3. Per letter of the law, this was not > explicitly voted on and even if it was an agreement by the Geronimo PMC > does not translate to other PMCs. In spirit, I would really like the same > support shown by the 6 of you who voted yes to Geronimo becoming an EE > Commons. If you see people getting excited about something in TomEE, > please extend the same "I won’t stand in the way, I even applaud the > spirit” and "more strong Apache projects is never a bad thing” mentality. > > For the 6 that voted, is my perspective clear? Not trying to convince > anyone as I understand everyone has their own perspective and vision. I > just want to make sure I’m communicating clearly as there are signs I am > not. > > > -David > > -- ------------------------ Guillaume Nodet
