Why? You going to verify my affiliation or something? I don't have
anything to prove to you. As Tim said in another thread you don't
intimidate me either.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:38 AM, jgenender <jgenen...@apache.org> wrote:
> Oh let’s not go there Chris :-). You won’t like the answers.
>
> Who are you affiliated with, Chris?
>
>
> christopher.l.shannon wrote
> > As someone who has no affiliation with Red Hat (I don't work for them and
> > I
> > am not a customer) I do get pretty tired of all the accusations as well
> > and
> > getting lumped into having an agenda.
> >
> > I am a heavy 5.x user and I have contributed to the project quite a bit
> > the
> > past couple of years. My motivation for wanting Artemis to succeed is
> > purely a technical one. I have evaluated both brokers and Artemis is not
> > perfect but it has a good architecture and in my opinion is a good
> > foundation for building the best broker possible. Others can disagree
> and
> > that is fine but that is my reasoning.
> >
> > Martyn brings up a point that I have avoided bringing up until now but I
> > will bring it up because I'm pretty tired of all of the accusations about
> > company agendas. I think it's pretty obvious from anyone paying
> attention
> > to see that the people who are voting -1 are the same people who are not
> > involved in the community at all. Jeff and Hadrian and company...when's
> > the last time you guys actually contributed anything to the project?
> > Answered a user question? Fixed a bug? Joined in on a technical
> > discussion? Did a release? Fixed a CVE? The only time you guys show up
> is
> > on threads like this.
> >
> > To all the people who voted -1 because you don't think that Artemis is
> > ready to become ActiveMQ 6 because of lack of migration and
> features...how
> > about you guys actually help contribute and make it a reality instead of
> > making accusations?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Martyn Taylor <
>
> > mtaylor@
>
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the accusations made in this
> >> thread.
> >>
> >> After the last round of accusations of Red Hat are pushing through their
> >> own agenda, I'm sad to see it happening again. I continue to use my Red
> >> Hat email address in public discussions, in my PR requests and review.
> >> I've nothing to hide nor am I ashamed to be employed by a company like
> >> Red
> >> Hat. My legions lie with ActiveMQ and making the project and community
> a
> >> better place. I've put so much personal and emotional effort into this
> >> project. To have my votes and opinions abrogated just because I work
> for
> >> a
> >> certain company I find shocking and not at all democratic.
> >>
> >> Actually, looking back through this vote thread to the people who voted
> >> +1,
> >> who were accused of pushing an alternate agenda are actually the same
> >> people who I see involved in the community on a day to day basis. The
> >> same
> >> people fixing bugs, answering user questions and doing releases. And
> >> they're not all employed by the same company.
> >>
> >> If people want to vote -1 to this, fair enough you're entitled to your
> >> vote
> >> and I have no issue. But, all this talk about companies pushing an
> >> agenda,
> >> seems to me to be a bit of a guise to detract away from the actual
> >> subject
> >> in hand. TBH, I am sick of hearing about it.
> >>
> >> I respect the result of the vote.
> >>
> >> I am -1 on the idea of making Artemis TLP.
> >> I am +1 on Bruce's suggestion on creating a Roadmap. I think this is
> >> really what we need right now.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Michael André Pearce <
> >>
>
> > michael.andre.pearce@
>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an
> >> overhaul
> >> > and design inline with the new logo.
> >> >
> >> > Mike
> >> >
> >> > Sent from my iPhone
> >> >
> >> > > On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder <
>
> > bruce.snyder@
>
> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to
> take
> >> on
> >> > > this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more
> >> > prominent
> >> > > on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
> >> > > separate discussion around this.
> >> > >
> >> > > More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
> >> > >
> >> > > Bruce
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> >> >
>
> > clebert.suconic@
>
> >>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from
> this
> >> > >> thread:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
> >> > >> - Refactor the website... like.. now... with Artemis being brought
> >> > >> forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
> >> > >> ... any volunteers here?
> >> > >> ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the
> >> confluent
> >> > >> wiki.
> >> > >> - Have more discussions on the dev list
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > 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
> >> >
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-
> f2368404.html
>
