activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:53:18 GMT
I think it has become somewhat obvious that this is an issue which
is currently, as well as potentially, damaging an important
project and community.

As such:

The ASF board has taken notice of some PMC issues going on in ActiveMQ.
There appear to be two distinct factions under the same ASF umbrella of
this project: One is focusing on a codebase called "HornetQ"; another is
the more traditional Apache ActiveMQ PMC. What appeared to start off
as an opportunity for these 2 factions to merge and grow together, has
instead devolved into, for lack of a better term, a power struggle.

The board is not happy about the current state of affairs. The job of
the VP is to be the eyes and ears of the board, and clearly that job is
not being done effectively. The board offers its help and strongly
encourages the PMC and the Chair to take it, before more pro-active
action is required by the board.

We (the board) expect a full report by the current ActiveMQ PMC and a
roadmap for going forward, either as a single harmonious project,
or as 2 distinct projects.

> On Mar 30, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Gordon Sim <> wrote:
> On 03/28/2015 01:28 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> What I don't like, from what I read, is almost virus-like
>> attempt to make HQ into AMQ. Virus works by invading a cell
>> and then using the cell itself to reproduce; the original cell
>> is gone, all that remains is the virus (this is incredibly
>> simplified, btw). It almost seems that the idea is, well, we
>> can't control the development of AMQ, so let's stack the
>> deck and make HQ the next version of AMQ and, shazam!, we now
>> control the direction of an Apache TLP.
> What I don't like is the imputation of devious motives without supporting evidence. Emotive
attack on the character of individuals is unjustified and unhelpful.
> Regardless of the merits of different points in this debate, or the eventual conclusion
reached, this is surely not the example to set for constructive community discussion.
>> Someone on the thread called it a hostile takeover; I fail
>> to see how that interpretation is far from the mark.
> I fail to see how that interpretation is supported by fact.

View raw message