activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hadrian Zbarcea <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Move the ActiveMQ web-console to a sub-project.
Date Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:37:23 GMT

That's really easy. All Apache communities encourage collaboration and 
recognize merit. In spite of the occasional friction, we have a common 
goal and interest in making the ActiveMQ project better.

So keep your contributions coming and thanks!


On 01/30/2014 01:29 PM, Zakeria Hassan wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> Well put ! I really liked your response to the thread "on putting ActiveMQ
> web-console to a subproject..." . I originally voted +1 on this but after
> reading what you emailed, it changed my mind. I want to let you know I am
> ready to help to make the console better, just create some issues and feel
> free to assign them to me. I participated in the comments on this issue:
> I am the creator of <> which is a job
> search engine start-up and wrote all the front-end and 97% of the backend
> code. I'm a contributor on many open source projects you can see the list
> on my github account. I'll be able to volunteer if need be after work. I
> got some great ideas on how we can improve the console and I'm really great
> at CSS, Javascript, HTML, Spring, Java, etc. Feel free to email me if there
> is anything needed of me by Apache Foundation. I'd like to be a committer
> on ActiveMQ.
> Thanks,
> Zak
> @Prospect1010
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Kulp <> wrote:
>>> I want the best experience for the end user of ActiveMQ - and that's it
>> - simple.
>> If that's your primary driver for the ActiveMQ project at Apache, we
>> already have a problem.   The primary goal of an Apache project should be
>> to build the community of developers working on and contributing to the
>> Apache project.   The goal needs to be to build a diverse and stable
>> community for the code.
>> I had a long email thread with Roy Fielding (if you don't know who he is,
>> google him.  Short answer is one of the Apache founders, on the Board of
>> Directors forever, etc....) about some of this back in December, mostly just
>> to get things completely straight in my own head.   Unfortunately, it's a
>> private conversation so I cannot paste directly from it, but basically the
>> thoughts come down to:
>> 1) Apache is more than happy to point users that need a more "Enterprise
>> Experience" to the RedHat's, the Talend's, the Savoir Tech's, etc...   Even
>> pointing at other communities such as  Apache recognizes that
>> for the projects to really succeed, people may need to make money off their
>> involvements.   That's NOT a bad thing.   If users need a better console
>> than the Apache community provides, fine, let some other community/company
>> provide that.   If they need 24x7 support, fine, let a company provide
>> that.   From what I gather, most, if not all, of the board members would
>> agree with that.      That said, Roy generally takes things even further
>> and really doesn't think Apache should even provide binaries at all, just
>> source, and those companies could provide the enterprise binaries.   That
>> opinion is not shared amongst all the board members.
>> 2) HOWEVER, it's very important that the projects remain fair and
>> unbiased.   From the Apache projects standpoint, that basically means we
>> cannot promote particular third party companies/communities "add ons" or
>> services over any other.   This applies to the releases, it applies to the
>> website, etc....   As a PMC, we can say "We provide a basic user experience,
>> if you need more, here is a list of options.   Try them out and see what
>> fits your needs."    As a PMC, we cannot say "Just use, it's the
>> only one worth looking at."    The main reason is we WANT competitors and
>> such to get involved with the projects at Apache.   They should be able to
>> participate in the Apache stuff without having to worry about how they
>> compete with the non-Apache stuff.
>> The reason #2 is important for this conversation is that if the PMC
>> decided to include (providing the skinning/branding is fixed), it
>> would also HAVE to include any other third party console that met the same
>> requirements.   It must be fair and unbiased.  Thus, if I fork,
>> remove the fuse stuff, add some Talend stuff, and publish that, ActiveMQ
>> would also have to ship that if asked.  If Johan took the current console,
>> forked it, cleaned it up a bit, and released as open source, we'd have to
>> include that as well.  Etc....  I don't know about you, but in my opinion,
>> shipping 5 consoles would be confusing to people (and result in a gigantic
>> bloated download).
>> Dan
>> On Jan 30, 2014, at 3:10 AM, Robert Davies <> wrote:
>>> Hi Johan,
>>> its great to know that you are earning so much money from Apache
>> ActiveMQ!
>>> I want the best experience for the end user of ActiveMQ - and that's it
>> - simple. Right now that's hawtio. The old web console is frankly  well
>> beyond love - but I can understand from a money making point of view you
>> wouldn't want to have hawtio as an option of end users. Which is why moving
>> it  to a sub-project will allow you and your colleagues  to work on it -
>> you'll probably get even more money from your customers - or you could just
>> save the hard work - skin hawtio however you like (Johan's Console) - and
>> make a mint yay!
>>> What ever happens in the community,  what ever console we use, if nobody
>> uses hawtio ever again, if folks went bananas and started using other OS
>> solutions  -  I and my "Fuse" (top 10 on [1]).  colleagues get payed the
>> same. We don't have an interest in this for financial gain, let alone agree
>> on what should happen - apart from the old web console is something we
>> don't want to work on - but when you've been fixing crappy bugs in for a
>> while [1] - you may feel the same way.
>>> When you get a salary/bonus/shares regardless  - it enables you to make
>> decisions that's best for the users - I don't think that anyone else  (your
>> colleagues or partner companies) who want so desperately to keep the old
>> console, have the same objectivity.
>>> Just so its all  out there - hawtio is open source, is AS2 licence - and
>> the community is diverse. More than one large company uses it directly in
>> their products.  Where hawtio lives, what direction it takes is entirely
>> down to the hawtio community -  my employer - Red Hat really doesn't care -
>> hawtio isn't at the ASF for other reasons.
>>> [1]
>>> On 30 Jan 2014, at 05:41, Johan Edstrom <> wrote:
>>>> A big -1 that is non binding.
>>>> I'm tired of this shit, let us put it all on the table.
>>>> I probably made around 75k USD last year supporting and writing code
>> around AMQ.
>>>> If you count the other work I probably made closer to 300k USD, so yes
>> I'm really open.
>>>> I'm working with or I am surrounded by the people that benefit from
>> what AMQ does.
>>>> So I'll go on and list the rest of the people here - Just from the last
>> post.
>>>> Dejan, +1 - RedHat
>>>> Hiram, +1 - RedHat
>>>> Rob +1 - RedHat,
>>>> Claus +1 RedHat,
>>>> I could go on, I could also put their purchase history from Fuse to
>> RedHat,
>>>> inspect AS Server Modules and SwitchYard.
>>>> Then I could ask if there was a monetary gain in Hawt (WTF?) is
>> introduced into
>>>> Jiras, emails, mailing lists or whatever the hell else?
>>>> So - we have a PMC telling us that not using ASF code but rather RH
>> code is good
>>>> - since it is Secure,
>>>> - since it isn't the 90's
>>>> - since it is what the customer wants?
>>>> Does anyone actually believe this load of shit?
>>>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Kevin Earls <> wrote:
>>>>> +1
>>>>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Dejan Bosanac <>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dejan Bosanac
>>>>>> ----------------------
>>>>>> Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
>>>>>> Twitter: @dejanb
>>>>>> Blog:
>>>>>> ActiveMQ in Action:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:01 AM, James Strachan <
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>> On 28 January 2014 15:18, Hiram Chirino <>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Since there seems to be general agreement that the web-console
>> should
>>>>>>>> be moved to a sub-project, lets put it to a vote and make
>> official.
>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Create the activemq-web-console sub-project with the
>> associated
>>>>>>>> git, wiki, and jira spaces.
>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Veto the making it a sub-project
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>> blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>> Red Hat
>>>>>>> Email:
>>>>>>> Web:
>>>>>>> Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
>>>>>>> Blog:
>>>>>>> Open Source Integration
>>> Rob Davies
>>> ----------------
>>> Red Hat, Inc
>>> - #dontcha
>>> Twitter: rajdavies
>>> Blog:
>>> ActiveMQ in Action:
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> -
>> Talend Community Coder -

View raw message