You continue to make more accusations, justifying yourself by accusing me
of being disingenuous. These statements are just plain ignorant. They
don't warrant a sensible response.
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Martyn, you continue to misrepresent things.
> When we say RH on this thread it's pretty clear what it means. It was said
> before, we prefer to use this term to refer to a group that does have an
> agenda.
There are a few people who refuse to have conversations that ignore the
> elephant in the room.
>
> So, RH. I have nothing but respect for RedHat Software, Inc. I have
> friends over there, I know its culture, I was invited to some of its
> events, I *recommend* some of its products. Great company, friendly to open
> source, sponsor of the ASF.
>
> The RH clique in this thread refers to a group of people who, in my
> experience, are pushing an agenda. You claim that Artemis has fantastic
> technical merits. Fine. In the open source world, pay attention, value is
> given by adoption. Not by marketing materials, not by what managers say,
> *adoption*! ActiveMQ proved that, Camel did, Karaf did, CXF did. Heck,
> HTTPD did, Hadoop+Spark big data ecosystem, Maven, they all did, by getting
> adoption.
>
> HornetQ/Artemis has its chance, it's on equal footing. All this
> conversation points to a belief of the said clique that lives in an echo
> chamber that the *only* way to get adoption for Artemis is to steal the
> ActiveMQ name, buy replacing it. The only tool said clique has (and had) is
> overwhelming veto power in the PMC (Bruce mentioned it yesterday that
> technically the vote could pass, but he knows very well what would happen
> next). I asked you, and the -1s got reversed in an amusing way, if you want
> to grow Artemis inside or outside the ActiveMQ community. So you don't want
> to go TLP (I expected that) because like I was told in the past what you
> want is the ActiveMQ brand. And the more sad reason for that (I know
> outraged replies will follow), is that the issue is you promising something
> to your managers and thy bought into your ideas the hinge on stealing
> (basically) ActiveMQ. It's not RedHat Software, Inc's fault, it's all on
> you. And now you're in a bind. Even scarier is that the market, see AWS
> seems, to validate the value of ActiveMQ (the real one, 5.x).
>
> So, I dare you to prove me wrong, and prove the Artemis value by
> increasing adoption. Bonus points for doing it without abusing the ActiveMQ
> brand. Or you can try abusing of your voting power. But you'd gain more
> respect from building technology of undeniable value, like many of the ASF
> projects.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
>
>
> On 12/07/2017 06:26 AM, Martyn Taylor 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.pea...@me.com> 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.sny...@gmail.com> 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.suco...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
