Sorry! Yeah, I was thinking it was more a project organization thing, but happy to accommodate it as a code change.
I appreciate the +1’s. Updated vote closing: 3x binding (cshannon, jbonofre, mattrpav) Thank you, Matt Pavlovich > On Apr 13, 2026, at 11:29 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm also fine to switch my vote to +1. > > I just wanted to clarify the voting principles. > > Regards > JB > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 6:27 PM Christopher Shannon < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> That's a good point JB, I'd consider it a code change so I'll just >> switch my vote to +1. >> >> I think it's fine and I don't really care too much especially with >> Matt doing the work :) Also, I think we may need to do more protobuf >> work coming up as we modernize things anyways. >> >> Chris >> >> On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 12:00 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Matt >>> >>> Are you sure here? >>> >>> If we consider this vote is for a code modification: in this scenario, a >>> negative vote constitutes a veto, which the voting group (generally the >> PMC >>> of a project) cannot override. Under normal (non-lazy consensus) >>> conditions, the proposal requires three +1 votes and no -1 votes in order >>> to pass; if it fails to garner the requisite amount of support, it >> doesn't. >>> Then the proposer either withdraws the proposal or modifies the code and >>> resubmits it, or the proposal simply languishes as an open issue until >>> someone gets around to removing it. >>> >>> That's described here: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >>> >>> My take here is that we are in code modification case, right ? >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 4:58 PM Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>>> Completing this vote with lazy consensus and I will move forward with >>>> merging the activemq-protobuf PR into main for v6.3.0. >>>> >>>> Vote total: >>>> 1 (binding - Matt Pavlovich) >>>> 2 (+0 - JB, CShannon, and sorta Justin via the [DISCUSS] thread) >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Matt Pavlovich >>>> >>>>> On Apr 6, 2026, at 11:23 AM, Matt Pavlovich <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This vote is to host the activemq-protobuf modules in the main >>>> apache/activemq source tree. >>>>> >>>>> This would target v6.3.0 >>>>> >>>>> Benefits >>>>> 1. Align version number with the release >>>>> 2. Easier alignment of JDK language and runtime compatibly (current >> code >>>> needs clean-up to remove WARNs on compile) >>>>> 3. Future change to consolidate redundant I/O related classes across >> the >>>> project — ASCIIBuffer, UTF8Buffer, *Stream classes, etc. >>>>> 4. Ability to update the format as needed for future enhancements and >>>> features (ie add a serial number of active-active replication, etc) >>>>> 5. Initially, no change to Maven coordinates. Only version number to >>>> align w/ broker release(s) >>>>> >>>>> Here is my +1 (binding) >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Matt Pavlovich >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information, visit: https://activemq.apache.org/contact
