I think it is worth pointing out that the code donation is in the incubator, the short form of incubation to complete ip clearance[1].
Implicit in that is the intent to collaborate with an existing community, not to create a new community. [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html On 21 April 2015 at 10:08, Martyn Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 21/04/15 04:29, artnaseef wrote: >> >> I didn't even catch up on this entire thread, so forgive me if I missed >> something. It's wearing me out - again. > > +1. I understand that those folks on this thread are particularly > passionate and hence why things have escalated to this point. I get the > impression that everyone on this thread wants the best for ActiveMQ. This > will not happen if people start making accusations, falling out and start > battling. Once this happens the issue at hand stops being about the "good" > and starts becoming about the "win" (or not losing face). Please, all, put > differences aside and be objective about the issue in hand. >> >> >> Look, it's last minute. No quick fixes are coming. >> >> There are some good things happening now, but they won't fix things today >> or >> tomorrow. Given the timing and the threat of board action, it's natural >> to >> question sincerity. >> >> Let's get the board report finished. >> >> Hiram - please add to the board report Hadrian's belief that the best path >> forward for the new code is to take it to the incubator. Mention that at >> least one other board member feels that path is likely the best one >> forward >> - especially given the problems currently faced by the ActiveMQ community. >> Just state it as fact - that it's the opinion of individual PMC members. > > +1. Please just add that this is the opinion of some PMC and community > members. > > Perhaps what is needed is a clear, concise representation of the argument > backing up this view. Hadrian and/or Tracy perhaps you can provide a > summary of your views that can be included in the report. Hiram is not best > suited to write this on your behalf. > > To balance this argument, we also need a clear, concise representation of > the opinion of those who feel that ActiveMQ Artemis should not go into > incubator, Hiram perhaps you can provide this? > > Laying the two arguments side by side, void of emotion should make the two > stances clear. The request to have representation in this report is a > reasonable one, and in my opinion should be addressed. > >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Special-Board-Report-tp4695140p4695336.html >> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
