I voted in favour of the code donation. I also voted for the activemq6
name back then. The way it was presented back then, read the threads,
was that hornetq comes with jms 2.0 support, better threading model,
we'll take what's good there and incorporate it into activemq. The same
all is peachy message as the current board report.
A few months later, the first activemq 6 release, I personally wasn't
that interested in yet, still a long way from a production release. Then
there was -1 vote due to name clashes. I seconded that with a -1 of my
own. And then everything went haywire, right? I suggested a change of
name, read the threads, and then the reaction from the Winston/Fuse
crowd, which I didn't call evil nor conspiracy (although my
understanding as of late is that everything was planned in a corporation
meeting rooms) was very violent. The consequence was my recommendation
to grow HornetQ in the right place for that at the ASF.
I find your comments, David utterly insulting. Misrepresenting my words,
the comments you made before about using words of less than one
syllable, etc. Unfortunately it represents more the Winston way of
'community building', because RH crowd is way more diverse, nuanced and
creative at the ASF. Just my personal opinion.
What kind of community involvement do you expect? Wasn't the future of
the project already predicted? Not by you, because I am convinced you
were 'brought back' to demonstrate how diversity works.
And finally, I totally agree with you. I am a squeaky wheel, I am not
happy nor proud about it. It could have been much easier squeaks were
not ignored.
Hadrian
On 04/20/2015 08:02 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Where I think we are now…. (started before Hadrians recent post, but
reemphasized by it)
My apologies for misrepresenting what anyone and everyone has said. In
particular, I think Art and Hadrian have been the squeaky wheels, and I may
still be missing a lot of what you are concerned about. On the other hand a
lot of my questions have gone unanswered.
1. artemis to incubator. The original discussion was to bring what is now
artemis into the activemq community. Therefore to me there needs to be a
problem that kicking it out again will really clearly solve. As near as I can
make out the problem is insufficient involvement of non-redhat employees. To
me the best way to solve this is by increasing the involvement of non-redhat
employees rather than decreasing the involvement of redhat employees. I think
pushing any enthusiastic community members out is a bad idea.
If you think the people focusing primarily on artemis aren't community members
yet, I will repeat my question that no one has tried to answer yet….. what did
you think would happen when you invited them in?
2. Community involvement, expanding the community, etc. I think everyone agrees by now that the
existing committers "should" apply all the outstanding patches, invite more people to be
committers, and the PMC "should" invite non-PMC committers onto the PMC. Somehow I'd
expect the loudest complainers to be at the forefront of this activity, but, although I might be
blind, I don't. I'm left with the impression that Hadrian and Art think that along with their day
jobs, the red hat employees are the only people who have enough time, by virtue of their jobs, to
do this work as well. I dunno, this is just an impression I'm developing after waiting for weeks
for a positive suggestion about the community. Who specifically should we vote in as a committer?
That's something we could have done a couple weeks ago. Which committer, specifically, could be
brought into the PMC to try to counterbalance the alleged RH junta?
I'm really discouraged by the insistence from a couple people that the only
possible explanation of where we are now is an evil Winston/Fuse/RedHat
conspiracy. I think it's also just barely possible that after working all day
people get tired. After providing unpaid all-waking-hours support for first
jboss and then geronimo for many many years I sure did. This is not to say
that there isn't a strong need for more community involvement, but expecting
the same people to do everything all the time is getting implausible.
david jencks
On Apr 20, 2015, at 5:51 PM, Bruce Snyder <[email protected]> wrote:
Agreed, we need to get this report published/submitted, so time is off the
essence here.
Hadrian, you have raised some points that you would like to have included
in the report, but nobody can read your mind. Please add your points to the
report so that others can see them and discuss them ASAP.
Bruce
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Hiram Chirino <[email protected]>
wrote:
So we are running into a time crunch here. I'm hoping all the PMC
members will pitch in and apply any edits to the report they deem
necessary. Many thanks to those who have helped out. Seems like some
folks are still now happy with it, so that's why have held off in
sending it so that they get a chance to add their input. But your
right, I do have to send this in before the 22nd so really today is
the last day I can hold off so that I can send it on the 21st so that
the board has at least 24 hours to review before their meeting.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]>
wrote:
One more thing. It's the responsibility of the PMC chair to provide a
timely
report to the board. It's entirely his choice how he wants to go about
it,
what he decides to include and what to leave out. The report should be
published in a timely manner though, so that comments (usually from the
board) could be addressed before the meeting.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 04/20/2015 05:23 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Ok so, then it sounds like your ok with the report the way it is right
now.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]>
wrote:
I have nothing to write. There were some claims made that were not
substantiate. My request was for the party that made the claims to
provide
an explanation.
I cannot explain somebody else's point of view. I can explain my views
if
anybody requires it.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 04/20/2015 02:39 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hadrian, please write up what you want to include in the board report
that way the rest of the PMC can review.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]>
wrote:
First, the report is late. Second, I don't think it addresses the
problems.
Third, I made a request to please include in the report an
explanation
about
why hornetq moving to the incubator is a non-starter for Fuse crowd.
It
is
very frustrating that requests get ignored.
Hadrian
On 04/20/2015 02:16 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Are they any other updates folks want to make to this report?
Please
apply your updates soon. The board meets on the 22nd and I'd like
to
submit the report on the 21st at the latest.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Hiram Chirino
<[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi guys. The board requested a report this month and had some
specific questions around the hornetq code donation. I've put up a
first cut a report on the Wiki at:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=55155578
Hopefully we can finish off the code donation naming vote soon a
report that too.
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[email protected] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
--
perl -e 'print
unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
