activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org>
Subject [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Move the ActiveMQ web-console to a sub-project.
Date Sat, 01 Feb 2014 07:19:02 GMT
Dan is correct.

hawt.io being part of Apache is a separate and orthogonal discussion

to what *this discussion* needs to arrive at a suitable conclusion for -
that is currently the *Apache ActiveMQ* Project Management Committee (PMC)
is blatantly abusing Apache's brands by having released a version of
the Apache ActiveMQ software product containing a web component that does
nothing to credit the Apache Software Foundation as the home for the
development of the Apache ActiveMQ project. That is ground zero for
what needs addressing and why I took an action from the Board meeting
to investigate and fuel a resolution to this as an Apache Director.

The February 2014 board meeting needs a solution to this. Looks like
the current VOTE is about:

1. Creating a sub project of Apache ActiveMQ for the web console

Separate from this, I believe Hadrian reverted hawt.io out of the current
trunk per
a separate thread and there is discussion of a release of the Apache
ActiveMQ product out of trunk (correct?) that simply contains the old
console but also includes
all of the other goodies and bells and whistles of the latest Apache Active
MQ product simply sans hawt.io.

Hadrian's revert at this point and the release that should follow will
address the concern of branding and trademarks.

The Apache ActiveMQ community seems to have more to deal with beyond that.
The biggest question will be what to do with the web console. If the above
VOTE (this VOTE) succeeds and the console is in its own sub-product (simply
another directory in SVN with potentially a different release cycle as it
was put), 
the answer at that point isn't simply shoving hawt.io back in sans some
big time 
branding. And even beyond that branding, realize that you have at least
one board
member here who will be watching the way this discussion plays out. Dan
brought up
some good points (as have others including Rob) about incorporating third
party 
software and the technical nooks and crannies necessary to make that
happen. 
As has been pointed out so far, many of the folks on the Apache ActiveMQ
PMC seem to have a foot on the development of the hawt.io system
externally and
thus need to carefully teeter their Apache hat (the one I care about) and
their 
other hats ($dayjob; $funjob; etc.) Introducing dependencies upon
externally 
stewarded projects where Apache PMC members are part of that project will
*always*
introduce conspiracy theories -- so be prepared for them -- and be
prepared for
scrutiny that will ensue. Also you will get people like me whose primary
interest is in
the ASF and Apache being around for the next 50 years wondering, "if
hawt.io is so 
bad ass, and half of the people on the Apache ActiveMQ PMC are developing
it, why the
crap aren't they doing it here at the ASF or improving what's here at the
ASF?"

To get back on point -- I'm looking for the PMC to arrive at a solution
that
addresses the *current* branding and trademark problem. Seems like it's
close
to being there with Hadrian's revert and impending release. My suggestion:
arrive
at that soon with something you can point to or that I can point to during
the
board meeting. Then, work these community issues and arrive at some
consensus and
I encourage everyone around here to get back to developing code and having
fun
so that the ASF is fun to you if you are hanging around here.

Cheers,
Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org>
Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
Date: Friday, January 31, 2014 9:12 AM
To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move the ActiveMQ web-console to a sub-project.

>
>On Jan 30, 2014, at 5:46 PM, Robert Davies <rajdavies@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 
>> On 30 Jan 2014, at 22:07, jgenender <jgenender@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> A lot of those names seem to jump out as being AMQ committers.  I
>>>assume you
>>> would know, or perhaps one of the other hawt.io contributors would
>>>like to
>>> chime in?
>> 
>> There¹s more committers there who aren¹t involved with Apache, but
>>really its their community - they can choose where their code lives.
>
>I agree with Rob on this part.   We have to recognize that Apache is not
>the best fit for every project.   Apache has certain restrictions that it
>places on projects.   Things like consensus driven development,
>diversity, no benevolent dictators, simple things like voting on
>releases, open discussions, etcŠ.   However, Apache also has certain
>benefits such as the name association, legal protections, history of long
>lived projects (thanks to the diversity and such), even things like build
>systems.    Each projects needs to decide if the good parts out weigh the
>bad for them.  If they decide they don¹t, that is completely OK.  We¹re
>OK with that.
>
>However, if a project decides not to be part of the ASF, then they are
>not part of the ASF, period.   That means the ASF cannot be used to
>promote it and ASF cannot be used to drive developers to it unless it¹s
>completely done in a fair and unbiased manner.    The ASF projects cannot
>³endorse² them as the best thing since sliced bread.   It cannot be
>pushed on the users as the only way to do something.  EtcŠ     We thank
>them for doing a great job building on top of the work we do here and
>then we get back to doing the work we need to do here.
>
>As far as hawt.io is concerned, if they want to keep things out of AMQ,
>that is perfectly fine.   They are entitled to that as they are the ones
>working on it.   I wish them all the best of luck.   It is nice
>technology.    However, I also ask them to please stop pushing it within
>Apache.
>
>Folks: can we please let this drop?  Trying to push an external community
>into doing something they don¹t want to do IS a bit antagonistic.  A
>polite ³would you consider moving XYZ to AMQ?² question to THEIR mailing
>list could be appropriate, but if they say no (on their list), then it¹s
>pretty much done.   If they don¹t want it part of Apache, then we say
>thanks for considering it and then we move on with what we need to do
>here and pretty much ignore them.   If THEY keep coming back to our list
>and trying to push there stuff on us, that¹s different.  Politely tell
>them to go away and then get back to doing what we need to do here.
>
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>
>> Apache isn¹t exactly the best place for innovation. Just look at this
>>whole thread, imagine trying to create a UI based around consensus - it
>>wouldn¹t happen - so it doesn¹t seem odd to me that the ASF wouldn't be
>>there first choice.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Also, if you are not part of the hawt.io community, whats up with your
>>> signature?
>> 
>> There¹s never been a great management console before that has been
>>under a permissive licence like the ASF - its a game changer. I¹m happy
>>to promote in any small way I can.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> rajdavies wrote
>>>> I¹m not a member of the hawtio community - but they were pretty clear
>>>>they
>>>> didn¹t feel the ASF was the best place to innovate and develop a UI.
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>> Rob Davies
>>>> ‹‹‹‹‹‹‹‹
>>>> Red Hat, Inc
>>>> http://hawt.io - #dontcha
>>>> Twitter: rajdavies
>>>> Blog: http://rajdavies.blogspot.com
>>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://www.manning.com/snyder/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>>http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Move-the-ActiveMQ-web-console
>>>-to-a-sub-project-tp4676877p4677102.html
>>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> 
>> 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