> What changed to start it all over again? The answer to your question is not a secret. I kicked off a discussion on the user list about clarifying the ActiveMQ road-map based on interactions with confused users. This vote grew out of that discussion.
> This is not a vote for a controversial feature people can't agree on, nor on accepting an external contribution, nor a release vote. What is it? In my view this discussion is about clarifying the road-map for ActiveMQ. I would encourage you to take a look at the original email I sent which kicked off the discussion to get more clarity. It seems you've missed a key part of the discussion so far. > Some see Artemis as the future of ActiveMQ. Other gray beards see it as a project that needs to get more adoption an prove itself before it's clear that it can be the evolution of the current 5.x version... The "adoption" argument seems a bit circular to me. I don't see how a project can be run or at the very least a road-map defined based on future adoption. It seems to me that you're saying we have to wait for adoption to clarify the ActiveMQ road-map, but in my opinion projects without a clear road-map aren't likely to grow adoption significantly. In another email you said we need to have this "clarified [sic] internally, not externally." However, isn't relying on adoption essentially outsourcing the decision to external entities? In my opinion, that's more akin to just seeing where the wind is blowing rather than really building community. > No consensus yet. Consensus as I understand it is just a majority of people who believe the same way. According to this vote so far there are 13 (including me) who are in favor of Artemis becoming ActiveMQ 6 and 4 who are opposed. That's 76% to 24% respectively. Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems like consensus to me. Justin On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gary, > > That is precisely what folks vote -1 against. I hope you are not implying > that the -1s should not be counted because you believe the -1s where for a > different reason. > > Surely you must remember the same issue being raised and a vote called > some 2 years ago if my memory serves me well (I can look it up if > necessary). Exactly same vote, exactly same statement of intent. You know > how that went. What changed to start it all over again? > > Can we agree that this vote is a PR/marketing play, not technology? This > is not a vote for a controversial feature people can't agree on, nor on > accepting an external contribution, nor a release vote. What is it? > > Some see Artemis as the future of ActiveMQ. Other gray beards see it as a > project that needs to get more adoption an prove itself before it's clear > that it can be the evolution of the current 5.x version that serves the > market very well (proven yet again by AWS). No consensus yet. > > Hadrian > > > > On 12/06/2017 10:45 AM, Gary Tully wrote: > >> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially state >>> the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as >>> ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address >>> concerns. >>> >> >> >> This was also my understanding and what I voted for. >> Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified. >> >> is this what folks voted against? >> >> gary. >> >>
