On Jan 30, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Robert Davies <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 30 Jan 2014, at 22:07, jgenender <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> A lot of those names seem to jump out as being AMQ committers. I assume you >> would know, or perhaps one of the other hawt.io contributors would like to >> chime in? > > There’s more committers there who aren’t involved with Apache, but really its > their community - they can choose where their code lives. I agree with Rob on this part. We have to recognize that Apache is not the best fit for every project. Apache has certain restrictions that it places on projects. Things like consensus driven development, diversity, no benevolent dictators, simple things like voting on releases, open discussions, etc…. However, Apache also has certain benefits such as the name association, legal protections, history of long lived projects (thanks to the diversity and such), even things like build systems. Each projects needs to decide if the good parts out weigh the bad for them. If they decide they don’t, that is completely OK. We’re OK with that. However, if a project decides not to be part of the ASF, then they are not part of the ASF, period. That means the ASF cannot be used to promote it and ASF cannot be used to drive developers to it unless it’s completely done in a fair and unbiased manner. The ASF projects cannot “endorse” them as the best thing since sliced bread. It cannot be pushed on the users as the only way to do something. Etc… We thank them for doing a great job building on top of the work we do here and then we get back to doing the work we need to do here. As far as hawt.io is concerned, if they want to keep things out of AMQ, that is perfectly fine. They are entitled to that as they are the ones working on it. I wish them all the best of luck. It is nice technology. However, I also ask them to please stop pushing it within Apache. Folks: can we please let this drop? Trying to push an external community into doing something they don’t want to do IS a bit antagonistic. A polite “would you consider moving XYZ to AMQ?” question to THEIR mailing list could be appropriate, but if they say no (on their list), then it’s pretty much done. If they don’t want it part of Apache, then we say thanks for considering it and then we move on with what we need to do here and pretty much ignore them. If THEY keep coming back to our list and trying to push there stuff on us, that’s different. Politely tell them to go away and then get back to doing what we need to do here. Dan > Apache isn’t exactly the best place for innovation. Just look at this whole > thread, imagine trying to create a UI based around consensus - it wouldn’t > happen - so it doesn’t seem odd to me that the ASF wouldn't be there first > choice. > >> >> Also, if you are not part of the hawt.io community, whats up with your >> signature? > > There’s never been a great management console before that has been under a > permissive licence like the ASF - its a game changer. I’m happy to promote in > any small way I can. > >> >> >> rajdavies wrote >>> I’m not a member of the hawtio community - but they were pretty clear they >>> didn’t feel the ASF was the best place to innovate and develop a UI. >>> <SNIP> >>> Rob Davies >>> ———————— >>> Red Hat, Inc >>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha >>> Twitter: rajdavies >>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com >>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/ >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Move-the-ActiveMQ-web-console-to-a-sub-project-tp4676877p4677102.html >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > 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
