That's why new project usually start in the incubator, whey they prove
that they can govern, create a community and the like.
HornetQ preferred to get inside ActiveMQ just because of the strong RH
presence in the PMC. Last time this went all the way to the board (one
board member called if a "switch-a-roo" iirc).
If you want we can talk about the story of another ActiveMQ sub-project
called Camel. Or another project that started as a sub-project in a
community, then moved a sub-project in Felix, and now it's a TLP.
How about a vote to make Artemis a TLP, not ActiveMQ 6. There's already
a Qpid, a RocketMQ. Would that be satisfactory? I would +1 that.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 12/06/2017 03:13 PM, Justin Bertram wrote:
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.
