Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of chirino@gmail.com designates
 209.85.216.179 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: chirino@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <551575A8.5080509@rcbowen.com>
References: <55127628.2030008@gmail.com>
	<CAH+vQmMZhnLJNRc4Y761RTv9OZxc6+drVRM-EEeKRR3xYTEOUw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1427299537888-4693805.post@n4.nabble.com>
	<D138C4EF.2177C3%chris.mattmann@gmail.com>
	<CAOqetn_zfD4YbRp6xP25cOw6x-xnLciM7axjM-vE2nx+XdWicw@mail.gmail.com>
	<D1396B16.218038%chris.mattmann@gmail.com>
	<CAGZ-RDJqn_EfL1sxbaosGdDntnMWvev0+0dEWXVXgyo5Thsosg@mail.gmail.com>
	<551575A8.5080509@rcbowen.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:28:05 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAGZ-RD+6yJk96Aace+BX9wTdO3c7UJJTQFC3CJSoW=8yvgeQeA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
From: Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com>
To: ActiveMQ-Developers <dev@activemq.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I've been trying to keep quite to get an idea of different folks view
points.  At this point I think it's fair to say that the ActiveMQ
project has not reached consensus that the HornetQ code contribution
is ready to become the successor to ActiveMQ 5.

So calling the git repo for the code donation activemq-6, was probably
a bad idea.  A this point I think the code donation should follow the
path the apollo took and switch to a code name.  It should continue to
do milestone release and solicit the help of ActiveMQ 5.x
users/developers to help mature into the successor that it wants to
become.

We can then revisit renaming to an ActiveMQ N, once it has matured to
the point there is little objection to it becoming the successor.


On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Rich Bowen <rbowen@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> [I see that some of what I put in this email has already been said by
> others, but I'm going to go ahead and send it, because it needs to be
> heard.)
>
> On 03/26/2015 12:02 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> If you take a peek at the source code for the code grant I think
>> you'll notice that all the original HornetQ references have been
>> removed/replaced by ActiveMQ.  So I think we are ok from a TM
>> perspective.
>>
>
>
>
> A much larger concern (at least to me) is not merely the naming, but the
> perception that a completely new codebase has been brought to the project,
> replaced the existing work wholesale, and been called the next version. This
> is how it's been described to me by several different members of the project
> community, and their perception is that this has been done without the
> consent of the community. This is, of course, a fairly serious accusation.
>
> Related to this is the assertion that the PMC has been somewhat biased on
> who has been invited to join their numbers, based on corporate affiliation -
> an even more serious accusation.
>
> The analogy that was offered to me was that of the IIS code being imported
> into the Apache httpd code tree, and released as httpd 3.0, by virtue of a
> majority Microsoft presence on the PMC.
>
> I recognize that this is a very harsh accusation. The folks that have
> brought this concern to me have done so privately because they feel that
> their voice is ignored on the PMC list.
>
> In terms of how this situation might be resolved, two things have been
> suggested.
>
> 1) Invite some of your 30+ non-PMC committers onto the PMC.
>
> 2) Go ahead and release something based on HornetQ, just don't call it the
> next version of ActiveMQ over the objections of the minority. (I see that
> this solution has been addressed by others, recommending that the code be
> taken to the incubator.)
>
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
> http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon


-- 
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino