Hi Robert, That would be a fine decision by me, and then if at some point the Apache ActiveMQ PMC desired to make a console that they wanted to maintain (or some subset of the PMC/committers wanted to maintain) and keep up with Apache branding/etc., that could be done later and when there is time.
Cheers, Chris -----Original Message----- From: Robert Davies <[email protected]> Reply-To: <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:25 AM To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Default Web Console >The old console is really getting to a point of not being maintainable - >so ideally it should be removed - and as ActiveMQ¹s main focus is to be >just a message broker it would be easier not to ship one at all (IIRC the >majority of security issues for the ActiveMQ project have been console >related). I¹m all for user experience but we could just take the >decision to not ship any console what so ever and just direct folks to a >list of 3rd party consoles ? > >On 19 Dec 2013, at 18:01, Chris Mattmann <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi James, >> >> Thanks for your quick reply! >> >> >> Some comments below: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: James Strachan <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >> Date: Thursday, December 19, 2013 9:42 AM >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Default Web Console >> >>> Hey Chris >>> >>> So hawtio is a ASL licensed community open source project; its not a >>> company product or commercial tool. There are committers from different >>> companies on it. >>> http://hawt.io/ >> >> Gotcha, OK. That being said, even if hawtio is a community supported >> project >> (which that's great, glad to hear it) and that it's ALv2 licensed, as it >> stands >> from what I can see that particular product has no Apache ActiveMQ, let >> alone >> Apache branding on it at all, whereas the former >>old-not-really-maintained >> console >> has Apache branding all over it. Is the hawtio product customizable? >>Does >> it allow skinning? >> If it does that's one thing; and an incremental step that can be taken >>by >> the >> Apache ActiveMQ PMC to make the products that it ships (which may >>include >> dependencies >> on software that enhance user experience) respect the fact that they are >> Apache products. >> >> Beyond skinning, the Apache ActiveMQ PMC should also consider strong >> dependencies on external products that aren't supporting products, but >>in >> fact >> major architectural elements to be something that in general is a bad >> practice. >> This is mostly because the Apache ActiveMQ PMC can only be responsible >>for >> stewarding >> the software that it produces. Thought hawtio is community led, and >>though >> it's ALv2 >> licensed, it's not the ActiveMQ PMC and thus subject to its own >>committers >> and PMC >> members itches that they are scratching, and subject to its own release >> schedule >> and ultimately subject to its own merit and stewardship. So, ultimately >> it's different, >> and having strong dependencies from Apache products on external elements >> outside of >> the stewardship of the PMC is certainly allowed but it just introduces >> checks and >> balances both social, and technical (as well as political too from what >> I've seen) >> that ultimately in the end create more work. I realize that folks may >>wear >> different >> hats, and may wear multiple hats (for example, are there are hawtio >> community members >> who are also Apache ActiveMQ PMC members here? if so, please let me >>know) >> - but >> when you're at the ASF you need to wear you're ASF hat over here. So you >> just >> need to consider those things (not "you" specifically I'm using the >>royal >> "you" >> referring to the ActiveMQ PMC members over here in ASF land). >> >>> >>> but if folks are worried about having a console from a different open >>> source project inside ActiveMQ we can easily rip it out; it was only >>>added >>> to try give users a better experience of using ActiveMQ (particularly >>>as >>> the old-not-really-maintained console sucks ass & is huge). >> >> Sure, I'm not worried about having a different console per se -- in >>fact, >> I have no technical merit here in ActiveMQ land, so I don't really have >>a >> say -- I'm over here as an ASF director b/c I've seen and heard things >>that >> indicate to me that not only is the Apache ActiveMQ PMC taking technical >> steps that don't respect the Apache brand, but there are also technical >> connections being made to external software products where some of the >> corporate influence issues I've seen in the past are coming up. >> >> In response to the above about the comment about the existing >> old-not-really- >> maintained console "sucking ass", I would ask as an ASF member and >>ActiveMQ >> PMC member per [1], wouldn't the goal then to be to make an Apache >>ActiveMQ >> branded console that doesn't? If your answer is, step #1 was to >>introduce >> hawtio >> since it's great and blah blah; but step #2-N is to then skin it and >>make >> it >> Apache branded, etc., then that's a start at a roadmap to get in line >>with >> what I would expect of an ASF PMC led by people who care about the ASF. >> Beyond that, I would also ask you as an ASF member and Apache ActiveMQ >> PMC member -- do you think it's a good idea to have dependencies on >> something >> as critical as user experience on software that isn't stewarded by the >> Apache ActiveMQ PMC and maintained on ASF bits and hardware? >> >> >> hawtio has every right to exist and should I'm not saying it shouldn't, >> but typically >> the way that works it that upstream or downstream software products to >>the >> ASF >> build on our ASF software and then may commercialize, etc or sell it but >> that has to be different software since the ASF isn't a company and we >> exist to provide open source software for the public good. >> >> Cheers, >> Chris >> >> >> [1] http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#activemq >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19 December 2013 17:17, Chris Mattmann <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Guys, >>>> >>>> >>>> First let me introduce myself. My name is Chris Mattmann and I'm >>>> currently a member of the Apache board. I took a look at the goings-on >>>> related to the recent change in the web console, where now it appears >>>> the first link on a standard deployment of ActiveMQ and its web >>>>console >>>> points to a web console from hawtio. >>>> >>>> I don't really have any skin in the game on which company built what, >>>>or >>>> who's is better, etc. I have been around the ASF for nearly a decade >>>>and >>>> have been through the trials by fire of Lucene, Hadoop, and a number >>>>of >>>> the ASF's largest projects. >>>> >>>> I *do* however have a problem that the ActiveMQ PMC now is stewarded a >>>> product, *Apache ActiveMQ* wherein which that product ships with a web >>>> console that includes a first link to what appears to me at least to >>>>be >>>> a specific company's product *hawtio web console*. >>>> >>>> With my Director hat on -- this is unacceptable and needs to be fixed. >>>> So let's discuss how this came about, and what can be done to fix it. >>>> I don't have time and haven't read through all the prior history and >>>> threads, but I'm happy to read through links folks have for me to >>>>check >>>> out, >>>> and also happy to help lend a hand towards addressing this. It can be >>>> addressed >>>> in various ways, so let's talk about it. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> James >>> ------- >>> Red Hat >>> >>> Email: [email protected] >>> Web: http://fusesource.com >>> Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews >>> Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> Open Source Integration >> >> > >Rob Davies > >Red Hat, Inc >http://hawt.io - #dontcha >Twitter: rajdavies >Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com >ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/ >
