Re: [VOTE] [RESULT] retire/EOL the Geronimo Server part?
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 2:42 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > I think i get your point of view. Ill note that i didnt participate in this > vote but my POV is that we were only voting on item 1, retire the server. > > The fact that new components are coming in is a different item. If the goal > is to shut down G and moving elsewhere and everyone is in agreement thats > fine. I suspect not everyone is in agreement. > > If for instance there's a strong opinion to incubate potential sub projects > that can happen as well. But i dont think we are saying at this time that G > is now EE commons. Thanks for this. It does help clarify. -David
Re: [VOTE] [RESULT] retire/EOL the Geronimo Server part?
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > This 'implied' 3rd block was actually never implied nor up for discussion. > Not quite sure what I did word wrong to give you that impression. > But rest ensurred that it was never intended that way! >> Paraphrasing, I’ve seen “we agreed to do it in Geronimo, why are you >> attempting to move forward elsewhere” > > We do have existing code in geronimo. Used all over the place in other > projects. There is now no confusion anymore as the G server is dead. So what > would moving those existing projects to TomEE add for all those projects? Note, I’m not requesting the remaining Geronimo bits to move to TomEE. It has been mentioned several times, particularly by Jeff and I would support it, but for the sake of avoiding confusion I’m not referring to this. On this particular subject, I have a gut feeling David Jencks would really love to see Geronimo legacy live on in some form, so if there isn’t unanimous support for moving things, I don’t want to push on that rock. Where I do get confused is statements like this on the thread of adding new non-ASF code into TomEE: > On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:43 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote: > > Why not geronimo subprojects since it is the official umbrella project now > - vs tomee is not until we rediscuss it transprojects. > > Really sounds weird to me to try to push it in tomee when we agreed to do > it in G weeks ago, what am I missing? When statements like this are said, even proceeding any formal vote on the G side, it blurs things for me. I can’t see the “we” being cited and it likely colors people’s comments and votes. This very well can be just my confusion. If the “we” is just Romain. That’s fine. If there is a “we” and this perspective that Geronimo is the "official umbrella project now” to the exclusion of all other Apache projects, then I’d really like to talk about it. -David
Re: [VOTE] [RESULT] retire/EOL the Geronimo Server part?
On Sep 8, 2017 5:10 PM, "David Blevins" wrote: Moving the thread over here so we’re all on the same page. > On Sep 8, 2017, at 3:28 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:45 AM David Blevins wrote: > > On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > > +1 for going forward > > > > Note that I also totally understand Davids concerns about the public perception about Geronimo and that people still think we talk about the G-Server. > > To mitigate this problem I pushed forward with retiring the GServer part and move the Geronimo project to become an umbrella for Enterprise Java Components. And of course if the VOTE succeeds, then we will quickly also pimp the geronimo.a.o site to reflect the EOL state of GServer. > > > > @David, is that fine for you? > > I’ll be honest and say I feel a bit steam rolled. The “is this ok with you” sent 5 minutes after the vote already started. Vote closed sharply at 72 hours almost to the minute. I was home in WI on labor day weekend visiting family for the first time in 2 years. > > I'm a bit confused. Which vote are you referring to? The decision to retire Geronimo Server did close that weekend, but that feels very straight forward, were you saying we shouldn't have retired it? I’ll try to be as clear as possible, let me know if you understand even if you don’t agree. I’m ok with disagreement as long as I know there’s understanding. I think i get your point of view. Ill note that i didnt participate in this vote but my POV is that we were only voting on item 1, retire the server. The fact that new components are coming in is a different item. If the goal is to shut down G and moving elsewhere and everyone is in agreement thats fine. I suspect not everyone is in agreement. If for instance there's a strong opinion to incubate potential sub projects that can happen as well. But i dont think we are saying at this time that G is now EE commons. Effectively there were two things voted on, and to some an implied third. 1. Retire Geronimo Server. This is an easy +1 for me. We should have been clear with users and done that years ago. 2. Make Geronimo an “EE Commons”. I’m +0 on that. Having battled to change the perception of EJB for 15+ years, I’m sensitive to the cost and not excited to repeat that over the next 5 years attempting to convince people “Geronimo” isn’t an app server anymore. I understand others are up for the challenge, so I won’t stand in the way, I even applaud the spirit, so +0 rather than -0. It is zero, however, as I don’t plan personally to start new projects here for the reasons stated. Despite not having it in me to push heavily for a Geronimo rebirth, I’ll help with what I can and want nothing but the best. It is, after all, a major part of my life and history and more strong Apache projects is never a bad thing. 3. [implied] Block other projects from having reusable “EE Components”. I’m -1 on that. Not everyone who voted has this in mind, but I am seeing yield and stop signs being thrown up at attempts for people in TomEE to create reusable EE components. The vote or discussions here being used to more or less say “we” have decided for all of Apache that no other project should be allowed to do anything similar and if they are they’re hurting Apache. Paraphrasing, I’ve seen “we agreed to do it in Geronimo, why are you attempting to move forward elsewhere” has been said to me at least 3 times over the last 2 months, even before a vote. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would specifically like the words “we agreed” to be avoided on #3. Per letter of the law, this was not explicitly voted on and even if it was an agreement by the Geronimo PMC does not translate to other PMCs. In spirit, I would really like the same support shown by the 6 of you who voted yes to Geronimo becoming an EE Commons. If you see people getting excited about something in TomEE, please extend the same "I won’t stand in the way, I even applaud the spirit” and "more strong Apache projects is never a bad thing” mentality. For the 6 that voted, is my perspective clear? Not trying to convince anyone as I understand everyone has their own perspective and vision. I just want to make sure I’m communicating clearly as there are signs I am not. -David
Re: [VOTE] [RESULT] retire/EOL the Geronimo Server part?
This 'implied' 3rd block was actually never implied nor up for discussion. Not quite sure what I did word wrong to give you that impression. But rest ensurred that it was never intended that way! Why should we try to block anyone else from creating reusable components? What you might mean is that quite a few people gave you the feedback that a reusable components project which would get hosted in the TomEE project should get a specific different name and should _not_ get named TomEE. Just to upfront avoid the same confusion which you critisise in Geronimo. With the exception that the Geronimo AppServer is dead, but TomEE is gladly still well alive and so even more likely to cause confusion! And nothing happened for a month after we gave this feedback. Btw I gave this feedback in my function as TomEE member and without any hidden agenda. > Paraphrasing, I’ve seen “we agreed to do it in Geronimo, why are you > attempting to move forward elsewhere” We do have existing code in geronimo. Used all over the place in other projects. There is now no confusion anymore as the G server is dead. So what would moving those existing projects to TomEE add for all those projects? LieGrue, strub > Am 08.09.2017 um 23:10 schrieb David Blevins : > > Moving the thread over here so we’re all on the same page. > >> On Sep 8, 2017, at 3:28 AM, John D. Ament wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:45 AM David Blevins wrote: >>> On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: >>> >>> +1 for going forward >>> >>> Note that I also totally understand Davids concerns about the public >>> perception about Geronimo and that people still think we talk about the >>> G-Server. >>> To mitigate this problem I pushed forward with retiring the GServer part >>> and move the Geronimo project to become an umbrella for Enterprise Java >>> Components. And of course if the VOTE succeeds, then we will quickly also >>> pimp the geronimo.a.o site to reflect the EOL state of GServer. >>> >>> @David, is that fine for you? >> >> I’ll be honest and say I feel a bit steam rolled. The “is this ok with you” >> sent 5 minutes after the vote already started. Vote closed sharply at 72 >> hours almost to the minute. I was home in WI on labor day weekend visiting >> family for the first time in 2 years. >> >> I'm a bit confused. Which vote are you referring to? The decision to >> retire Geronimo Server did close that weekend, but that feels very straight >> forward, were you saying we shouldn't have retired it? > > I’ll try to be as clear as possible, let me know if you understand even if > you don’t agree. I’m ok with disagreement as long as I know there’s > understanding. > > Effectively there were two things voted on, and to some an implied third. > > 1. Retire Geronimo Server. This is an easy +1 for me. We should have been > clear with users and done that years ago. > > 2. Make Geronimo an “EE Commons”. I’m +0 on that. Having battled to change > the perception of EJB for 15+ years, I’m sensitive to the cost and not > excited to repeat that over the next 5 years attempting to convince people > “Geronimo” isn’t an app server anymore. I understand others are up for the > challenge, so I won’t stand in the way, I even applaud the spirit, so +0 > rather than -0. It is zero, however, as I don’t plan personally to start new > projects here for the reasons stated. Despite not having it in me to push > heavily for a Geronimo rebirth, I’ll help with what I can and want nothing > but the best. It is, after all, a major part of my life and history and more > strong Apache projects is never a bad thing. > > 3. [implied] Block other projects from having reusable “EE Components”. I’m > -1 on that. Not everyone who voted has this in mind, but I am seeing yield > and stop signs being thrown up at attempts for people in TomEE to create > reusable EE components. The vote or discussions here being used to more or > less say “we” have decided for all of Apache that no other project should be > allowed to do anything similar and if they are they’re hurting Apache. > Paraphrasing, I’ve seen “we agreed to do it in Geronimo, why are you > attempting to move forward elsewhere” has been said to me at least 3 times > over the last 2 months, even before a vote. > > Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would specifically like the words > “we agreed” to be avoided on #3. Per letter of the law, this was not > explicitly voted on and even if it was an agreement by the Geronimo PMC does > not translate to other PMCs. In spirit, I would really like the same support > shown by the 6 of you who voted yes to Geronimo becoming an EE Commons. If > you see people getting excited about something in TomEE, please extend the > same "I won’t stand in the way, I even applaud the spirit” and "more strong > Apache projects is never a bad thing” mentality. > > For the 6 that voted, is my perspective clear? N
Re: [VOTE] [RESULT] retire/EOL the Geronimo Server part?
That was my understanding too. Especially, the initial vote email says "Note that this vote is only about the Geroniom Server but NOT about the shared components. Those components will be further maintained - or moved to a different project later." Which to me goes against your point #3. 2017-09-08 23:10 GMT+02:00 David Blevins : > Moving the thread over here so we’re all on the same page. > > > On Sep 8, 2017, at 3:28 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:45 AM David Blevins > wrote: > > > On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > > > > +1 for going forward > > > > > > Note that I also totally understand Davids concerns about the public > perception about Geronimo and that people still think we talk about the > G-Server. > > > To mitigate this problem I pushed forward with retiring the GServer > part and move the Geronimo project to become an umbrella for Enterprise > Java Components. And of course if the VOTE succeeds, then we will quickly > also pimp the geronimo.a.o site to reflect the EOL state of GServer. > > > > > > @David, is that fine for you? > > > > I’ll be honest and say I feel a bit steam rolled. The “is this ok with > you” sent 5 minutes after the vote already started. Vote closed sharply at > 72 hours almost to the minute. I was home in WI on labor day weekend > visiting family for the first time in 2 years. > > > > I'm a bit confused. Which vote are you referring to? The decision to > retire Geronimo Server did close that weekend, but that feels very straight > forward, were you saying we shouldn't have retired it? > > I’ll try to be as clear as possible, let me know if you understand even if > you don’t agree. I’m ok with disagreement as long as I know there’s > understanding. > > Effectively there were two things voted on, and to some an implied third. > > 1. Retire Geronimo Server. This is an easy +1 for me. We should have > been clear with users and done that years ago. > > 2. Make Geronimo an “EE Commons”. I’m +0 on that. Having battled to > change the perception of EJB for 15+ years, I’m sensitive to the cost and > not excited to repeat that over the next 5 years attempting to convince > people “Geronimo” isn’t an app server anymore. I understand others are up > for the challenge, so I won’t stand in the way, I even applaud the spirit, > so +0 rather than -0. It is zero, however, as I don’t plan personally to > start new projects here for the reasons stated. Despite not having it in > me to push heavily for a Geronimo rebirth, I’ll help with what I can and > want nothing but the best. It is, after all, a major part of my life and > history and more strong Apache projects is never a bad thing. > > 3. [implied] Block other projects from having reusable “EE Components”. > I’m -1 on that. Not everyone who voted has this in mind, but I am seeing > yield and stop signs being thrown up at attempts for people in TomEE to > create reusable EE components. The vote or discussions here being used to > more or less say “we” have decided for all of Apache that no other project > should be allowed to do anything similar and if they are they’re hurting > Apache. Paraphrasing, I’ve seen “we agreed to do it in Geronimo, why are > you attempting to move forward elsewhere” has been said to me at least 3 > times over the last 2 months, even before a vote. > > Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would specifically like the > words “we agreed” to be avoided on #3. Per letter of the law, this was not > explicitly voted on and even if it was an agreement by the Geronimo PMC > does not translate to other PMCs. In spirit, I would really like the same > support shown by the 6 of you who voted yes to Geronimo becoming an EE > Commons. If you see people getting excited about something in TomEE, > please extend the same "I won’t stand in the way, I even applaud the > spirit” and "more strong Apache projects is never a bad thing” mentality. > > For the 6 that voted, is my perspective clear? Not trying to convince > anyone as I understand everyone has their own perspective and vision. I > just want to make sure I’m communicating clearly as there are signs I am > not. > > > -David > > -- Guillaume Nodet
Re: [VOTE] [RESULT] retire/EOL the Geronimo Server part?
Moving the thread over here so we’re all on the same page. > On Sep 8, 2017, at 3:28 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:45 AM David Blevins wrote: > > On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > > +1 for going forward > > > > Note that I also totally understand Davids concerns about the public > > perception about Geronimo and that people still think we talk about the > > G-Server. > > To mitigate this problem I pushed forward with retiring the GServer part > > and move the Geronimo project to become an umbrella for Enterprise Java > > Components. And of course if the VOTE succeeds, then we will quickly also > > pimp the geronimo.a.o site to reflect the EOL state of GServer. > > > > @David, is that fine for you? > > I’ll be honest and say I feel a bit steam rolled. The “is this ok with you” > sent 5 minutes after the vote already started. Vote closed sharply at 72 > hours almost to the minute. I was home in WI on labor day weekend visiting > family for the first time in 2 years. > > I'm a bit confused. Which vote are you referring to? The decision to retire > Geronimo Server did close that weekend, but that feels very straight forward, > were you saying we shouldn't have retired it? I’ll try to be as clear as possible, let me know if you understand even if you don’t agree. I’m ok with disagreement as long as I know there’s understanding. Effectively there were two things voted on, and to some an implied third. 1. Retire Geronimo Server. This is an easy +1 for me. We should have been clear with users and done that years ago. 2. Make Geronimo an “EE Commons”. I’m +0 on that. Having battled to change the perception of EJB for 15+ years, I’m sensitive to the cost and not excited to repeat that over the next 5 years attempting to convince people “Geronimo” isn’t an app server anymore. I understand others are up for the challenge, so I won’t stand in the way, I even applaud the spirit, so +0 rather than -0. It is zero, however, as I don’t plan personally to start new projects here for the reasons stated. Despite not having it in me to push heavily for a Geronimo rebirth, I’ll help with what I can and want nothing but the best. It is, after all, a major part of my life and history and more strong Apache projects is never a bad thing. 3. [implied] Block other projects from having reusable “EE Components”. I’m -1 on that. Not everyone who voted has this in mind, but I am seeing yield and stop signs being thrown up at attempts for people in TomEE to create reusable EE components. The vote or discussions here being used to more or less say “we” have decided for all of Apache that no other project should be allowed to do anything similar and if they are they’re hurting Apache. Paraphrasing, I’ve seen “we agreed to do it in Geronimo, why are you attempting to move forward elsewhere” has been said to me at least 3 times over the last 2 months, even before a vote. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would specifically like the words “we agreed” to be avoided on #3. Per letter of the law, this was not explicitly voted on and even if it was an agreement by the Geronimo PMC does not translate to other PMCs. In spirit, I would really like the same support shown by the 6 of you who voted yes to Geronimo becoming an EE Commons. If you see people getting excited about something in TomEE, please extend the same "I won’t stand in the way, I even applaud the spirit” and "more strong Apache projects is never a bad thing” mentality. For the 6 that voted, is my perspective clear? Not trying to convince anyone as I understand everyone has their own perspective and vision. I just want to make sure I’m communicating clearly as there are signs I am not. -David
Re: Renaming Geronimo Config?
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:45 AM David Blevins wrote: > > On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > > > +1 for going forward > > > > Note that I also totally understand Davids concerns about the public > perception about Geronimo and that people still think we talk about the > G-Server. > > To mitigate this problem I pushed forward with retiring the GServer part > and move the Geronimo project to become an umbrella for Enterprise Java > Components. And of course if the VOTE succeeds, then we will quickly also > pimp the geronimo.a.o site to reflect the EOL state of GServer. > > > > @David, is that fine for you? > > I’ll be honest and say I feel a bit steam rolled. The “is this ok with > you” sent 5 minutes after the vote already started. Vote closed sharply at > 72 hours almost to the minute. I was home in WI on labor day weekend > visiting family for the first time in 2 years. > I'm a bit confused. Which vote are you referring to? The decision to retire Geronimo Server did close that weekend, but that feels very straight forward, were you saying we shouldn't have retired it? We've never voted on a name for Geronimo Config. If you want, we can run that vote. But short of that, I'm not sure there's more we could vote on for this subject. I'll also share a bit more of my view point. - No to XBean, for reasons mentioned in the other thread. - Yes, we should find a more creative name than Config for the project. - I lean towards supporting Mark's POV on this more than anything, since Config is really something he started. > > In all my years at Apache I’ve never closed a vote that sharply especially > when I know there are concerns. > > It is clear I am the odd man out, however, and do not want to stand in the > way the way of anyone’s fun. > > What I ask is the same in return. I ask you politely to not block > attempts on the TomEE side to create sub-projects. I think everyone should > be allowed to have the fun they want to have. Anatole has’t come and tried > to shutdown Geronimo config. I haven’t attempted to go to OWB and shut > down Meecrowave. If there are people excited and willing to work on > something on the TomEE side, please don’t try to shut it down and redirect > it to Geronimo. > > I’ll contribute to what I can over on this side of the fence and think the > change is positive. I don’t however agree that other projects shouldn’t > also have similar fun. > > > -David > >
