activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Move the ActiveMQ web-console to a sub-project.
Date Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:05:56 GMT

> 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 hawt.io.  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 hawt.io, 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 hawt.io
(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 hawt.io, 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 <rajdavies@gmail.com> 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] https://www.ohloh.net/p/activemq/contributors?query=&sort=commits
> 
> 
> On 30 Jan 2014, at 05:41, Johan Edstrom <seijoed@gmail.com> 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 <kearls@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Dejan Bosanac <dejan@nighttale.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> +1
>>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> --
>>>> Dejan Bosanac
>>>> ----------------------
>>>> Red Hat, Inc.
>>>> FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
>>>> dbosanac@redhat.com
>>>> Twitter: @dejanb
>>>> Blog: http://sensatic.net
>>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:01 AM, James Strachan <james.strachan@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> +1
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 28 January 2014 15:18, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com>
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 it 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.
>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>> blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> James
>>>>> -------
>>>>> Red Hat
>>>>> 
>>>>> Email: jstracha@redhat.com
>>>>> Web: http://fusesource.com
>>>>> Twitter: jstrachan, fusenews
>>>>> Blog: http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Open Source Integration
>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> Rob Davies
> ————————
> Red Hat, Inc
> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
> Twitter: rajdavies
> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
> 

-- 
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com


Mime
View raw message