activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Mattmann <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Move the ActiveMQ web-console to a sub-project.
Date Sat, 01 Feb 2014 15:57:53 GMT
Hi Rob,

-----Original Message-----

From: Robert Davies <>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Saturday, February 1, 2014 1:02 AM
To: <>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] [VOTE] Move the ActiveMQ web-console to a

>On 1 Feb 2014, at 07:26, Chris Mattmann <> wrote:
>> My definition starts with a PMC that knowingly shipped a big
>> part of 
>> its product that had links all over it to technical documents, youtube
>> videos, company 
>> specific information and yet didn't have anything remotely resembling
>> Apache as a first
>> class citizen.
>> So yes, it's more than shipping a web console from another OS Apache
>> License project.
>> You (part of the Apache ActiveMQ PMC) help to ship an Apache endorsed
>> release that 
>> didn't respect Apache IMO and got the attention of trademarks and the
>> Apache board.
>It wasn¹t blatant, is wasn¹t deliberate - ActiveMQ has a lot of
>committers and a large PMC.

I'm hoping that's the case (that it wasn't blatant), but from what I've
seen so far the jury
is really out on that. Even statements from you that continue today
suggest to me that folks
were all very well aware that was being incorporated into the
sources. out of
the box does not respect Apache brands. I don't know how to put it any
clearer. However, let's
not pick on Guess what -- many external web components wouldn't
respect Apache brands
if we downright shipped them as part of our products. That's why we have
to do things like customize
them, skin or configure them, etc. Making the excuse that there's no
branding policy for situations
like this is a straw man and not correct (I'll get to that below).

As for its size ActiveMQ's PMC is ~42 people -- that is quite a few --
similar to projects
I've worked in including OODT, Hadoop, etc.

>The reality is that there are only half a dozen committers who have been
>consistently active on the project and have written a very large
>proportion of the code. If you look at the committers who are active,
>there¹s little cross over between them and committers on hawtio. A good
>indication of real activity on the PMC  is to look at who¹s been voting
>for new committers or new releases  - its consistently 6 or 7 people -
>James Strachan isn¹t on that list.

Thanks for the pointers. Having inactivity on the PMC is one thing (merit
at the ASF doesn't expire).
The PMC's responsibility is to make sure that the products it delivers and
ships as "Apache releases"
respect Apache brands. That's why we graduate projects out of the
Incubator. That's why we elect ASF "members"
who are supposed to know what's up and to ensure that the projects can
operate autonomously and in a decentralized
fashion so that the board doesn't have to come in and act like we're
centrally managing things. When board members
do step in, it's usually not with surgical precision -- it's with a
bazooka. In this case -- saying most of the
PMC is inactive and those that are active don't participate in, so
that's why it's OK doesn't really
make me confident that this PMC knows how to manage an ASF product or set
of them which isn't a good thing.

I took an action from the ASF board meeting to ensure that the ActiveMQ
PMC corrects this situation in
which it's shipped a product that doesn't respect Apache brands. The
product I'm discussing is ActiveMQ -- it's
not -- whether respects Apache brands is a different thing
depending on the Apache software
it may or may not use -- I don't really care about that (Shane does though
as VP, Trademarks). What I care
about is that the ActiveMQ release included a sub component ( that
needed skinning and tailoring
before being released. Without this tailoring we confuse our users who get
Apache ActiveMQ and scratch their
head why there are links to RedHat and YouTube on that web console and why
there is no mention prominently of Apache.

> That¹s not a good thing for the project - but its natural for a mature
>project to fall into this pattern. There was a genuine intention to
>improve the ActiveMQ project by including a new console (along side the
>old one)  - that was clearly a mistake,  but it wasn¹t a blatant attempt
>to circumvent the Apache brand.

You continue to say that -- great. Were you the one that issued the commit
to include If you weren't
I wouldn't speculate in general -- if you were the person to issue the
commit -- then I'll take your continuing
statement that it wasn't intentional to heart.

Whatever you or I believe is irrelevant though in the face of the very
real requirement that as shipped
in Active ActiveMQ does not respect Apache brands.

>There¹s actually no branding policy which covers these situations - I¹d
>be happy to help create one.

Yes there is. It's called:

This applies to the way we name our projects, to its websites and more
generally to the products we ship.
The way to look at it is -- first class citizens in our projects
(components, libraries, middle wares, web
UIs, etc.) need to respect our brands as much as the websites that we
steward and maintain about them and
as much as they are ultimately what the public associates in its head with
our products.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a trademarks person. But even I can make that
association. This is one of the litmus
tests of being a PMC member.


View raw message