On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 16:43 -0400, Rajith Attapattu wrote: > First of all, we as a community needs to collectively decide what our > charter is and more importantly *HOW TO GET THERE*. > While the majority *agrees* that our charter is "promoting the > adoption of AMQP and being the premier ecosystem for AMQP", there > seems *varying degrees of disagreements* on how to get there. > > Therefore we need to have that discussion. BUT lets not use that to > hold up the progress of Proton either. > > Arguing for or against, whether we should do this, under the same > project, a two headed project or two separate TLP's at this point > might be a distraction for Proton.
To be clear I wasn't actually proposing any one of those or suggesting that we need to decide one now. I'm actually fairly relaxed about how Qpid is organized overall so long as Proton is free to pursue its mission. The options I documented are all actually viewpoints that have been expressed to me by other Qpid developers. My first thought was that it would help to put the Proton mission, strategy, and scope down in words so that we would at least all have a common understanding of what is meant when someone says "Proton". However, after writing the document I came to the conclusion that peoples view of Qpid actually varies far more than anyone's view of Proton. > For now we all agree that Proton is a separate body of work, and it's > in a rapid growth stage. > We all agree that it's an important piece of work. Therefore we need > to ensure we progress on Proton. > A separate mailing-list and a JIRA instance is not unreasonable. > Mailing lists can be renamed, folded, deleted ..etc. > These pieces of infrastructure doesn't necessarily define the scope, > or mean we are deciding on the above argument. > **Projects are defined by the community, not pieces of infrastructure. > We need to understand that.** This is partly conjecture and partly based on some of what I've heard from other people off-list, but I think the issue some people have with a separate mailing list is that they are concerned that if Proton is allowed its own mailing list then its users will draw it in a direction that might not be consistent with the current set of Qpid users. For example the core goal of making it easy for applications to speak the protocol will very likely overlap with the existing client APIs that Qpid offers, and not everyone is comfortable with ceding that ground to Proton, or letting there be some amount of overlap. Recasting Proton as merely a component of Qpid and denying it its own mailing list might be seen as a way to preclude this possibility as it forces Proton users to be a subset of Qpid users and Proton goals to be subservient to Qpid goals. Unfortunately this pretty much kills the whole point behind Proton, which is to make it as easy as possible for *everyone* to speak AMQP, not just for Qpid users to speak AMQP. (Note that in the previous paragraph I'm using the term Qpid to refer to the existing Qpid brokers and clients, not some broader notion of a Qpid umbrella project.) This unfortunately ties the mailing list issue into the organizational one so long as people see the former as a way to influence the latter. --Rafael --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
