I want the best experience for the end user of ActiveMQ - and that's it
- simple.
If that's your primary driver for the ActiveMQ project at Apache, we
already have a problem. The primary goal of an Apache project should be
to build the community of developers working on and contributing to the
Apache project. The goal needs to be to build a diverse and stable
community for the code.
I had a long email thread with Roy Fielding (if you don't know who he is,
google him. Short answer is one of the Apache founders, on the Board of
Directors forever, etc....) about some of this back in December, mostly just
to get things completely straight in my own head. Unfortunately, it's a
private conversation so I cannot paste directly from it, but basically the
thoughts come down to:
1) Apache is more than happy to point users that need a more "Enterprise
Experience" to the RedHat's, the Talend's, the Savoir Tech's, etc... Even
pointing at other communities such as hawt.io. Apache recognizes that
for the projects to really succeed, people may need to make money off their
involvements. That's NOT a bad thing. If users need a better console
than the Apache community provides, fine, let some other community/company
provide that. If they need 24x7 support, fine, let a company provide
that. From what I gather, most, if not all, of the board members would
agree with that. That said, Roy generally takes things even further
and really doesn't think Apache should even provide binaries at all, just
source, and those companies could provide the enterprise binaries. That
opinion is not shared amongst all the board members.
2) HOWEVER, it's very important that the projects remain fair and
unbiased. From the Apache projects standpoint, that basically means we
cannot promote particular third party companies/communities "add ons" or
services over any other. This applies to the releases, it applies to the
website, etc.... As a PMC, we can say "We provide a basic user experience,
if you need more, here is a list of options. Try them out and see what
fits your needs." As a PMC, we cannot say "Just use hawt.io, it's the
only one worth looking at." The main reason is we WANT competitors and
such to get involved with the projects at Apache. They should be able to
participate in the Apache stuff without having to worry about how they
compete with the non-Apache stuff.
The reason #2 is important for this conversation is that if the PMC
decided to include hawt.io (providing the skinning/branding is fixed), it
would also HAVE to include any other third party console that met the same
requirements. It must be fair and unbiased. Thus, if I fork hawt.io,
remove the fuse stuff, add some Talend stuff, and publish that, ActiveMQ
would also have to ship that if asked. If Johan took the current console,
forked it, cleaned it up a bit, and released as open source, we'd have to
include that as well. Etc.... I don't know about you, but in my opinion,
shipping 5 consoles would be confusing to people (and result in a gigantic
bloated download).
Dan
On Jan 30, 2014, at 3:10 AM, Robert Davies <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Johan,
its great to know that you are earning so much money from Apache
ActiveMQ!
I want the best experience for the end user of ActiveMQ - and that's it
- simple. Right now that's hawtio. The old web console is frankly well
beyond love - but I can understand from a money making point of view you
wouldn't want to have hawtio as an option of end users. Which is why moving
it to a sub-project will allow you and your colleagues to work on it -
you'll probably get even more money from your customers - or you could just
save the hard work - skin hawtio however you like (Johan's Console) - and
make a mint yay!
What ever happens in the community, what ever console we use, if nobody
uses hawtio ever again, if folks went bananas and started using other OS
solutions - I and my "Fuse" (top 10 on [1]). colleagues get payed the
same. We don't have an interest in this for financial gain, let alone agree
on what should happen - apart from the old web console is something we
don't want to work on - but when you've been fixing crappy bugs in for a
while [1] - you may feel the same way.
When you get a salary/bonus/shares regardless - it enables you to make
decisions that's best for the users - I don't think that anyone else (your
colleagues or partner companies) who want so desperately to keep the old
console, have the same objectivity.
Just so its all out there - hawtio is open source, is AS2 licence - and
the community is diverse. More than one large company uses it directly in
their products. Where hawtio lives, what direction it takes is entirely
down to the hawtio community - my employer - Red Hat really doesn't care -
hawtio isn't at the ASF for other reasons.
[1] https://www.ohloh.net/p/activemq/contributors?query=&sort=commits
On 30 Jan 2014, at 05:41, Johan Edstrom <[email protected]> wrote:
A big -1 that is non binding.
I'm tired of this shit, let us put it all on the table.
I probably made around 75k USD last year supporting and writing code
around AMQ.
If you count the other work I probably made closer to 300k USD, so yes
I'm really open.
I'm working with or I am surrounded by the people that benefit from
what AMQ does.
So I'll go on and list the rest of the people here - Just from the last
post.
Dejan, +1 - RedHat
Hiram, +1 - RedHat
Rob +1 - RedHat,
Claus +1 RedHat,
I could go on, I could also put their purchase history from Fuse to
RedHat,
inspect AS Server Modules and SwitchYard.
Then I could ask if there was a monetary gain in Hawt (WTF?) is
introduced into
Jiras, emails, mailing lists or whatever the hell else?
So - we have a PMC telling us that not using ASF code but rather RH
code is good
- since it is Secure,
- since it isn't the 90's
- since it is what the customer wants?
Does anyone actually believe this load of shit?
On Jan 29, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Kevin Earls <[email protected]> wrote:
+1
On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Dejan Bosanac <[email protected]>
wrote:
+1
Regards
--
Dejan Bosanac
----------------------
Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
[email protected]
Twitter: @dejanb
Blog: http://sensatic.net
ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:01 AM, James Strachan <
[email protected]>wrote:
+1
On 28 January 2014 15:18, Hiram Chirino <[email protected]>
wrote:
Since there seems to be general agreement that the web-console
should
be moved to a sub-project, lets put it to a vote and make it
official.
[ ] +1 Create the activemq-web-console sub-project with the
associated
git, wiki, and jira spaces.
[ ] -1 Veto the making it a sub-project
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo
--
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/
--
Daniel Kulp
[email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
