activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Move the ActiveMQ web-console to a sub-project.
Date Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:38:35 GMT
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> 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 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).
>

Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand this point of view.
Couldn't the same argument be made of any 3rd party library that is used
then? For example, in Karaf, someone could say that they think we should
use something other than pax-url (not an apache project) for url handler
support and Karaf would have to then support that? I agree a project should
be fair and unbiased but I'm not sure that equates to not being able to
officially support one console (if the PMC can control it to a reasonable
fashion). I do think it would be bad if a project were to make it
impossible to replace a component, that would be biased, but they should be
able to say they officially support one approach.


>
> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message