On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:48 PM Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> According to the ASF Voting page ( > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html): > > 'Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule > unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes than > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- regardless of > the number of votes in each category. ' > > However, given that there are some binding -1s, I believe it is in > everyone's best interest to stop this vote and prepare a plan to move > forward as a group. > > In the interest of moving forward as a group, I have created a page > specifically for the Artemis Roadmap here: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/ActiveMQ+Artemis+Roadmap > > I encourage everyone to contribute to this page and discuss it in a > separate discussion thread on the dev@activemq list. I will start a > separate discussion for this topic now. > Can you please grant committers write access to this page? > > Bruce > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Shannon < > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > @Justin, > > > > In terms of consensus it depends on what it is with Apache. I know for > > releases you just need a majority vote but for code modifications a -1 > by a > > PMC member is a veto. > > > > In this case I'm not entirely sure but I think the -1 votes in this > thread > > would be considered a veto unless they are changed. > > > > See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic < > clebert.suco...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > @Jeff: > > > > > > All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future. > > > > > > We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and release > > > whenever it was ready. > > > > > > We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would drive > > > people using it.. etc.. etc.. > > > > > > Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption, and > > > there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the > > > website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help at > > > all!!!). > > > > > > If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the > > > website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before > > > starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into > > > here). > > > > > > Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda > > > items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That > > > answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you > > > used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on > > > where we will get. > > > > > > > > > So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more > > > prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <jgenen...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying > agenda > > > as > > > > you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies. > > > Sorry, > > > > just calling a spade a spade. Its definitely bringing back the > > > > knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago. That's a > shame > > > and > > > > I really hope that is not the direction this is going. > > > > > > > > This is a PR vote that also becomes technical. It's PR because some > > > folks > > > > are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now. Its > > technical > > > > because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from > > > AMQ5. > > > > I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - > whatever) > > is > > > > being deprecated", but guess what? Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means > > its > > > > the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the > > old. > > > > Remember AMQ3->4->5. Its an assumption that has been made on > numerical > > > > versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - > that's > > > > technical. It does make illusions of deprecation. So this is both PR > > > *and* > > > > technical. > > > > > > > > My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis > ultimately > > > > becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has > > > reasonable > > > > compatibility with AMQ5. NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some > basic > > > > stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running > AMQ5, > > > > which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority > of > > > our > > > > community. > > > > > > > > The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very > > > reasonable. > > > > Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line > > so > > > > that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version. Why is > that > > > > viewed as so unreasonable? > > > > > > > > I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming > > and > > > > vendors and versions. This is a problem because there is an agenda > and > > > > there is cross marketing going on. Look at this blog: > > > > > > > > https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w > > > hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/ > > > > > > > > Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo: > > > > > > > > https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/ > > > artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/ > > > > > > > > Is it 2 or is it 7? Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ? This repo has a > > numbering > > > > with our name on it, but is it even our code? So when I hear people > in > > > the > > > > community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh? There is > no > > > > ActiveMQ 7". After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss > > AMQ > > > 7. > > > > > > > > So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do > > with > > > > vendors, but lets be honest. This has everything to do with vendors > > and > > > > this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it. At the end of the > day > > > and > > > > in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with > > this. > > > > But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately > > > clouds > > > > this immensely. > > > > > > > > So I ask this. It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers > > here > > > are > > > > ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6. They are > asking a > > > > relative simple request: Can we please increase the community > adoption > > > and > > > > get it more compatible before renaming it? That makes this > > non-technical > > > > once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == > ActiveMQ > > 6. > > > > IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in > HornetQ > > > and > > > > why it was named Artemis to begin with. > > > > > > > > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon > when > > > > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and > eat > > > it > > > > too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sent from: > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404 > > . > > > html > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > > -- > 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://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder >
