This 'implied' 3rd block was actually never implied nor up for discussion. Not quite sure what I did word wrong to give you that impression. But rest ensurred that it was never intended that way!
Why should we try to block anyone else from creating reusable components? What you might mean is that quite a few people gave you the feedback that a reusable components project which would get hosted in the TomEE project should get a specific different name and should _not_ get named TomEE. Just to upfront avoid the same confusion which you critisise in Geronimo. With the exception that the Geronimo AppServer is dead, but TomEE is gladly still well alive and so even more likely to cause confusion! And nothing happened for a month after we gave this feedback. Btw I gave this feedback in my function as TomEE member and without any hidden agenda. > Paraphrasing, I’ve seen “we agreed to do it in Geronimo, why are you > attempting to move forward elsewhere” We do have existing code in geronimo. Used all over the place in other projects. There is now no confusion anymore as the G server is dead. So what would moving those existing projects to TomEE add for all those projects? LieGrue, strub > Am 08.09.2017 um 23:10 schrieb 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 >
