Re: [VOTE] [RESULT] retire/EOL the Geronimo Server part?

[David Blevins]

> 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?

[David Blevins]

> 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?

[John D. Ament]

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?

[Mark Struberg]

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 

Re: [VOTE] [RESULT] retire/EOL the Geronimo Server part?

[Guillaume Nodet]

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?

[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

Re: [VOTE] [RESULT] retire/EOL the Geronimo Server part?

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Le 2 sept. 2017 21:23, "Mark Struberg"  a écrit :

Time to tally the VOTE!

The following votes have been cast:

+1 Romain Manni-Bucau, David Jencks, Alan Cabrera, Guillaume Nodet,
Jean-Baptiste Onofré (nb), Mark Struberg
No -1 nor 0

That means the VOTE has passed and the Geronimo server parts will get
retird/EOLed.

Txs to all who voted!

Alan, do you like to draft the announcement?



How do we do it practically?
Move it into an end_of_life folder inside our own SVN area?


+1


And then we also gonna need to slowly update our site.


What about a new active projects index page and a banner about this kind of
news? Can surely be included in the work John is doing, no?


txs and LieGrue,
strub


> Am 30.08.2017 um 21:09 schrieb Mark Struberg :
>
> Picking this up and pushing it further!
>
> After discussing this topic many times and finding no one willing to
spend time to actively evolve nor even maintain the Geronimo Server part
I'd say we should finally call a VOTE:
>
> This is a VOTE to announce the EOL the Geronimo Server parts, mostly
> * https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/
> * https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/gshell/
>
> We will also have to update our site, moving most of the current stuff to
a 'legacy' area and rework it to focus on the new project agenda: to serve
common EE components for other ASF projects.
>
> We also have a directory which contains binaries (jars) which don't even
have a license information.
> We should absolutely get rid of them anyway from our repo!
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/repository/
>
>
> 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.
>
> This includes, but is not limited to, the following Geronimo parts:
> * the specs
> * genesis (parents for xbean and specs)
> * xbean
> * the components javamail, transaction, config
> Those parts WILL STAY,
>
> So please VOTE:
>
> [+1] Publicly announce that the Geroniom Server is EOL (End of Life) and
will not further be maintained but that the Geronimo Project will from now
on focus on reusable Java Enterprise components.
>
> [+0] meh, I don't care
>
> [-1] Nope, stop I need the Geronimo Server and I will ACTIVELY help to
maintain and evolve it in the future!
>
>
>
> Here is my +1
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>> Am 11.05.2017 um 22:09 schrieb Kevan Miller :
>>
>> There should be a public vote.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO 
wrote:
>> I think we came to an agreement so far
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 25 avr. 2017 à 00:21, Mark Struberg  a écrit :
>> Or do we need another formal vote?
>>
>> If we are all on the same boat, when, how and who is drafting the
Announcement?
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] [RESULT] retire/EOL the Geronimo Server part?

[Mark Struberg]

Time to tally the VOTE!

The following votes have been cast:

+1 Romain Manni-Bucau, David Jencks, Alan Cabrera, Guillaume Nodet, 
Jean-Baptiste Onofré (nb), Mark Struberg
No -1 nor 0

That means the VOTE has passed and the Geronimo server parts will get 
retird/EOLed.

Txs to all who voted!

Alan, do you like to draft the announcement?

How do we do it practically?
Move it into an end_of_life folder inside our own SVN area?
And then we also gonna need to slowly update our site.

txs and LieGrue,
strub


> Am 30.08.2017 um 21:09 schrieb Mark Struberg :
> 
> Picking this up and pushing it further!
> 
> After discussing this topic many times and finding no one willing to spend 
> time to actively evolve nor even maintain the Geronimo Server part I'd say we 
> should finally call a VOTE:
> 
> This is a VOTE to announce the EOL the Geronimo Server parts, mostly 
> * https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/
> * https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/gshell/
> 
> We will also have to update our site, moving most of the current stuff to a 
> 'legacy' area and rework it to focus on the new project agenda: to serve 
> common EE components for other ASF projects.
> 
> We also have a directory which contains binaries (jars) which don't even have 
> a license information.
> We should absolutely get rid of them anyway from our repo!
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/repository/
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> This includes, but is not limited to, the following Geronimo parts:
> * the specs
> * genesis (parents for xbean and specs)
> * xbean
> * the components javamail, transaction, config
> Those parts WILL STAY, 
> 
> So please VOTE:
> 
> [+1] Publicly announce that the Geroniom Server is EOL (End of Life) and will 
> not further be maintained but that the Geronimo Project will from now on 
> focus on reusable Java Enterprise components.
> 
> [+0] meh, I don't care
> 
> [-1] Nope, stop I need the Geronimo Server and I will ACTIVELY help to 
> maintain and evolve it in the future!
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my +1 
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
>> Am 11.05.2017 um 22:09 schrieb Kevan Miller :
>> 
>> There should be a public vote.
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO  
>> wrote:
>> I think we came to an agreement so far
>> 
>> 
>> Le mar. 25 avr. 2017 à 00:21, Mark Struberg  a écrit :
>> Or do we need another formal vote?
>> 
>> If we are all on the same boat, when, how and who is drafting the 
>> Announcement?
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>