-1 Non binding for the same reasons.
> On Dec 6, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -1
>
> agree with Rob
>
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 12/05/2017 05:17 AM, Rob Davies wrote:
>> [0] - without a clear migration path and tooling to assist existing users
>> moving from ActiveMQ 5 to Artemis, we risk abandoning those users - who may
>> then be forced to look at alternatives and abandon ActiveMQ all together.
>> This could be counter productive to the original intent.
>>> On 4 Dec 2017, at 20:32, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Following on from the discussion, "[DISCUSS] Confusion surrounding the
>>> ActiveMQ project roadmap"
>>>
>>> linked here for convenience :
>>> -
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4732935.html
>>> -
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Re-DISCUSS-Confusion-surrounding-the-ActiveMQ-project-roadmap-td4733148.html
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to propose a vote on ActiveMQ Artemis mainline becoming
>>> ActiveMQ 6.
>>>
>>> [+1] - agree
>>> [-1] . - disagree and provide some reason
>>> [0] - neutral but go ahead
>>>
>>> This vote will be open until Thursday, Dec 07 by the end of the day.
>>>
>>> Here is my +1 (PMC) vote.
