On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 08:51:31AM +0200, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > 2015-04-09 3:59 GMT+02:00 James Carman <[email protected]>: > > > I am trying to understand the picture that has been painted for us thus > > far. Maybe you can help me. First of all, the argument for why we need to > > start from the HornetQ code base is because the current core broker is in > > such disrepair that we can't fix it (and some feel that we should thank our > > lucky stars these guys came along when they did to save us all from our own > > incompetence). Now we are being told that our opinions really shouldn't > > matter and we should just blindly trust the folks who made it that way > > (they wrote most of the code, right) when they tell us that this is the > > right thing to do for the future of ActiveMQ? > > > > I'm simply trying to make a point about *my* opinion (I don't think I've > ever said > *we* or anything like that would lead people to think *my* opinion is the > only > valid one).
No. You haven't stated it that way, that I recall. But you have implied that. I've seen this "technique" of argument used here at the ASF over the past 15+ years. Some kind of bullshit argument, then the person gets called on it, and they respond "oh, that's not really what I meant", and weasel out of any single bad action. But the *summation* of their interactions is destructive. I've seen this over and over. Given the years and years of watching people try this, it becomes rapidly apparent when they use this approach. I have a long memory for people who do this, Guillaume. At the core, it is a technique used to divide. Always has been. I've seen it destroy Apache communities. Literally. Needless to say, it makes me very angry. Just stop with the history. Stop with the blame. Pick a codename, and never mention HornetQ again. Get the *whole* community involved in the new codebase (the commit statistics suck, on this newly-arrived code). Then get a release out under that new name. Get some feedback. When the community can produce a release, and start working with users around that release... it will bring you all together. And give you something to evaluate for a future path. -g
