All, Taking this debate public as this seems the consensus.
So, I don't want to point fingers or cause offence. I am a little less of a diplomat than Rob, so I'll mention that all the things on Rob's list have happend ed :-) However, Gordon has asked for specifics so ... 1. We've had pointing qpid users at RMG documentation on a RedHat site 2. Threads with RMG users looking for support on interop with RMG 3. Having RMG install paths in Qpid Java example code 4. Cpp download refs to RMG locations in response to qpid-dev queries I'm not proposing that these are deliberate attempts to subvert. They naturally reflect the real contribution of our project members, and some understandable blurring of Qpid/product focus. However, we do need to be careful around this. If there are RMG docs that cannot be contributed (have not been) they should not be sent out to Qpid users. Apart from anything else, it is confusing for newbies. I'm a bit frustrated here since we are project-wise not great at documentation across the piece. I'm trying to get there, and I'm hoping we all are ... I'm a bit bemused about why the qpid-dev list is the right place for discussing other AMQP offerings, particularly commercial offerings. Absolutely we need to be (and discussing our) AMQP compliance. I don't see that this extends to particular products ? We don't discuss interop with other JMS provider products .... I'm not seeking to be impose a 'blanket policy' and can only apologise for any confusion. However, we need to be seen to be fair. Are we going to discuss/diagnose problems interop-ing with other commerical offerings in this space (without having tested or stated interop) ? Marnie
