activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Special Board Report
Date Tue, 21 Apr 2015 02:19:56 GMT
You are the second person to allege that I am acting with secret instructions and communications
on this.  I demand a pubic apology, immediately.  I have done no such thing, all my communications
with anyone about this issue have been on this list, and in reply to others raising similar
issue on the pmc list.  This is disgusting.

No thanks at all.
david jenc\ks

On Apr 20, 2015, at 8:35 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com> wrote:

> I voted in favour of the code donation. I also voted for the activemq6 name back then.
The way it was presented back then, read the threads, was that hornetq comes with jms 2.0
support, better threading model, we'll take what's good there and incorporate it into activemq.
The same all is peachy message as the current board report.
> 
> A few months later, the first activemq 6 release, I personally wasn't that interested
in yet, still a long way from a production release. Then there was -1 vote due to name clashes.
I seconded that with a -1 of my own. And then everything went haywire, right? I suggested
a change of name, read the threads, and then the reaction from the Winston/Fuse crowd, which
I didn't call evil nor conspiracy (although my understanding as of late is that everything
was planned in a corporation meeting rooms) was very violent. The consequence was my recommendation
to grow HornetQ in the right place for that at the ASF.
> 
> I find your comments, David utterly insulting. Misrepresenting my words, the comments
you made before about using words of less than one syllable, etc. Unfortunately it represents
more the Winston way of 'community building', because RH crowd is way more diverse, nuanced
and creative at the ASF. Just my personal opinion.
> 
> What kind of community involvement do you expect? Wasn't the future of the project already
predicted? Not by you, because I am convinced you were 'brought back' to demonstrate how diversity
works.
> 
> And finally, I totally agree with you. I am a squeaky wheel, I am not happy nor proud
about it. It could have been much easier squeaks were not ignored.
> 
> Hadrian
> 
> 
> 
> On 04/20/2015 08:02 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> Where I think we are now…. (started before Hadrians recent post, but reemphasized
by it)
>> 
>> My apologies for misrepresenting what anyone and everyone has said.  In particular,
I think Art and Hadrian have been the squeaky wheels, and I may still be missing a lot of
what you are concerned about.  On the other hand a lot of my questions have gone unanswered.
>> 
>> 1. artemis to incubator.  The original discussion was to bring what is now artemis
into the activemq community.  Therefore to me there needs to be a problem that kicking it
out again will really clearly  solve.  As near as I can make out the problem is insufficient
involvement of non-redhat employees.  To me the best way to solve this is by increasing the
involvement of non-redhat employees rather than decreasing the involvement of redhat employees.
I think pushing any enthusiastic community members out is a bad idea.
>> 
>> If you think the people focusing primarily on artemis aren't community members yet,
I will repeat my question that no one has tried to answer yet….. what did you think would
happen when you invited them in?
>> 
>> 2. Community involvement, expanding the community, etc.  I think everyone agrees
by now that the existing committers "should" apply all the outstanding patches, invite more
people to be committers, and the PMC "should" invite non-PMC committers onto the PMC.  Somehow
I'd expect the loudest complainers to be at the forefront of this activity, but, although
I might be blind, I don't.   I'm left with the impression that Hadrian and Art think that
along with their day jobs, the red hat employees are the only people who have enough time,
by virtue of their jobs, to do this work as well. I dunno, this is just an impression I'm
developing after waiting for weeks for a positive suggestion about the community.  Who specifically
should we vote in as a committer?  That's something we could have done a couple weeks ago.
 Which committer, specifically, could be brought into the PMC to try to counterbalance the
alleged RH junta?
>> 
>> I'm really discouraged by the insistence from a couple people that the only possible
explanation of where we are now is an evil Winston/Fuse/RedHat conspiracy.  I think it's also
just barely possible that after working all day people get tired.  After providing unpaid
all-waking-hours support for first jboss and then geronimo for many many years I sure did.
 This is not to say that there isn't a strong need for more community involvement, but expecting
the same people to do everything all the time is getting implausible.
>> 
>> david jencks
>> On Apr 20, 2015, at 5:51 PM, Bruce Snyder <bruce.snyder@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Agreed, we need to get this report published/submitted, so time is off the
>>> essence here.
>>> 
>>> Hadrian, you have raised some points that you would like to have included
>>> in the report, but nobody can read your mind. Please add your points to the
>>> report so that others can see them and discuss them ASAP.
>>> 
>>> Bruce
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> So we are running into a time crunch here.  I'm hoping all the PMC
>>>> members will pitch in and apply any edits to the report they deem
>>>> necessary.  Many thanks to those who have helped out.  Seems like some
>>>> folks are still now happy with it, so that's why have held off in
>>>> sending it so that they get a chance to add their input.  But your
>>>> right, I do have to send this in before the 22nd so really today is
>>>> the last day I can hold off so that I can send it on the 21st so that
>>>> the board has at least 24 hours to review before their meeting.
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> One more thing. It's the responsibility of the PMC chair to provide a
>>>> timely
>>>>> report to the board. It's entirely his choice how he wants to go about
>>>> it,
>>>>> what he decides to include and what to leave out. The report should be
>>>>> published in a timely manner though, so that comments (usually from the
>>>>> board) could be addressed before the meeting.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 04/20/2015 05:23 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ok so, then it sounds like your ok with the report the way it is
right
>>>>>> now.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have nothing to write. There were some claims made that were
not
>>>>>>> substantiate. My request was for the party that made the claims
to
>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>> an explanation.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I cannot explain somebody else's point of view. I can explain
my views
>>>> if
>>>>>>> anybody requires it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 04/20/2015 02:39 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hadrian, please write up what you want to include in the
board report
>>>>>>>> that way the rest of the PMC can review.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbarcea@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> First, the report is late. Second, I don't think it addresses
the
>>>>>>>>> problems.
>>>>>>>>> Third, I made a request to please include in the report
an
>>>> explanation
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> why hornetq moving to the incubator is a non-starter
for Fuse crowd.
>>>> It
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> very frustrating that requests get ignored.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 04/20/2015 02:16 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Are they any other updates folks want to make to
this report?
>>>> Please
>>>>>>>>>> apply your updates soon.  The board meets on the
22nd and I'd like
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> submit the report on the 21st at the latest.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>> <hiram@hiramchirino.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys.  The board requested a report this month
and had some
>>>>>>>>>>> specific questions around the hornetq code donation.
 I've put up a
>>>>>>>>>>> first cut a report on the Wiki at:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=55155578
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully we can finish off the code donation
naming vote soon a
>>>>>>>>>>> report that too.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Hiram Chirino
>>>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> perl -e 'print
>>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
>>> 
>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
>>> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>> 


Mime
View raw message