activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
Date Wed, 08 Apr 2015 20:12:24 GMT
+1

Can I add a point into that:


there was a lot of hard at the docs as well, to give it a nice apache
ActiveMQ looks:

http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/docs/10.0.0-M1/index.html

We reworked the docs, rebranded, improved...   it's beyond in quality
to any work I had previously been part in my professional life. it's
some quality of work not available even at hornetQ which was my
previous working gig. and It's all part of a nice team work.

if you download the mobi or ePub, they are actually a nice reading for
your kindle or iPad (for your night reading ;) )...
and BTW you won't/shouldn't see any single mention of the word H word
on it. if you find any, let us know and we fix it.

And we did all that as a starting point of the IP Clearance. We can
only improve it from there.


On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@apache.org> wrote:
> 2015-04-08 18:33 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org>:
>
>> Hi Guillaume,
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@apache.org>
>> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 9:28 AM
>> To: <board@apache.org>, <dev@activemq.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>>
>> >My understanding is the following:
>> > * the use of "HornetQ" in all the conversations so far were referring to
>> >the "HornetQ code donation to the Apache ActiveMQ project".
>> > * the HornetQ trademarks were not transferred to the ASF
>> > * the "HornetQ" references in the donation have been removed in the git
>> >repository (for example all packages have been renamed to
>> >org.apache.activemq afaik)
>> >
>> >So the term "HornetQ code" is slightly abusive, as it's not hornetq
>> >anymore, it has been rebranded as activemq code.
>>
>> The above point is what’s under dispute. The community needs to
>> resolve that, and hasn’t. This is one of the center points of the
>> discussion. Lost in the weeds of auto bot emails (see separate
>> thread); and long threads over the last month, is a clear answer
>> on this point: “has it been rebranded”? One set of folks on the
>> PMC believe it has; another set believe it hasn’t and that the
>> process by which it was rebranded was led by the influence of a
>> set of folks from the same company that share a majority on the
>> PMC. Thanks for the pointers by everyone to the prior
>> discussion, but a decision must be reached to resolve this.
>>
>
> The code having been rebranded is not even a question that can be
> disputed.  It's not as if if is something "to be done".  It's just a fact
> that can be verified in the git repo. Packages have been renamed, the
> distribution has been renamed, etc...
>
> HornetQ does not exists at the ASF, as a project or as subproject.  The
> only thing is the "HornetQ code donation" which has been accepted,
> committed and already rebranded.
>
> What is disputed is the new name and what place this code will have in the
> ActiveMQ project (an additional broker or a replacement or whatever
> other possibility).
>
> Actually, all those concerns looks a bit weird when I think about it, given
> everything was done openly : the code has been accepted, the git repo has
> been named "activemq-6" and all the commits lead to messages on the mailing
> list starting with "activemq-6 git commit", and that has been this way
> since 5 months.  So raising hands after 5 months of open development ....
>
> Of course, during the recent conversations that took place, especially when
> talking about the future of this code donation, the term "HornetQ" was used
> as a way to describe the "hornetq code donation which is now located in the
> activemq-6 git repository".
>
> In addition, given the clear goal was to rebrand it to activemq6 (and it
> has already been rebranded that way, and the first release of this code is
> what started all those discussions), pointing fingers at Red Hat for
> abusive trademarks use looks, again, really abusive to me.
>
>
>>
>> Please work together as a community to resolve it.
>>
>
> I'm following this flame war as I've been following some other ones
> previously, involving the exact same persons.  The main problem here is
> mistrust, as people are seen to have a hidden agenda, and I'm not really
> sure how to help with that, I'm not a marriage conselor.
>
> In this very case, I think this is a technical decision, and my trust
> clearly goes to the ones that know and wrote 90% of the code, and when they
> all  seem to say the "hornetq" broker should replace the activemq 5 one, I
> don't see why I should give it any more second thoughts.
>
> I can try to be gentle and accept other solutions, such as a renaming and
> having 2 brokers.  But I do very well know that one will be soon abandoned
> for a lack of committers working on the core broker.  Maintaining the
> activemq 5 broker is fine, but I certainly fail to see how there will be an
> activemq 6 broker based on activemq 5 with major changes, if none of the
> committers on the broker are willing to work on it.
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> >So pointing to RedHat for abusive trademarks use or violation simply does
>> >not make any sense to me.
>> >So I don't see that there is anything to fix, but clarifying how the code
>> >currently located in the activemq6 git repository  will be named, either
>> >activemq6 or something else, which can't be Apache HornetQ at this point.
>> >
>> >
>> >2015-04-08 18:09 GMT+02:00 Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org>:
>> >
>> >> Hi Gary,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks. Well, we have a major problem then - see the
>> >> subject of this email thread, and much of the discussion
>> >> the last month. The discussion is one of these options:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Apache ActiveMQ has multiple products with multiple versions:
>> >>  a.  ActiveMQ - (version 5.x.x)
>> >>  b.  HornetQ - (which some are trying to call ActiveMQ version 6.x.x)
>> >>
>> >> 2. Apache ActiveMQ has 1 product with multiple versions:
>> >>   a. ActiveMQ (version 5.x.x and version 6.x.x)
>> >>   <—there is NOTHING in this option that mandates the current HornetQ
>> >> code becoming 6.x.x of ActiveMQ; also NOTHING stopping that. Decision
>> >> needs to be made.
>> >>
>> >> 3. Whatever is in the code repo now as ActiveMQ 6.x.x becomes
>> >> Apache HornetQ (incubating)
>> >>
>> >> It sounds like you are taking 1b; and and 2a off the table. You
>> >> are doing so, b/c Apache doesn’t accept code donations that are
>> >> centered around names and trademarks that we don’t own; otherwise
>> >> the product is renamed - the proposed renaming of it centers around
>> >> abuse of trademarks since the proposed rename leverages an existing
>> >> Apache product name. There hasn’t been work here to deal with the due
>> >> diligence of trademarks related to the HornetQ name.
>> >>
>> >> The community will need to have a plan for fixing that in its
>> >> board report. I suggest working on that plan, rather than trying
>> >> to correct my understanding. I also strongly suggest the community
>> >> engage with trademarks@ and achieve something acceptable as I’m
>> >> fairly sure that this isn’t.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Chris
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com>
>> >> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
>> >> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 8:56 AM
>> >> To: "dev@activemq.apache.org" <dev@activemq.apache.org>
>> >> Cc: <board@apache.org>
>> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>> >>
>> >> >Hi Chris,
>> >> >on 1) there may be a misunderstanding here. The code grant is just
>> >> >that, code. there is no trademark grant. There is no intention of
>> >> >having apache hornetq, that is not an option with the code grant that
>> >> >we have. Part of ip clearance and cleanup was to remove all references
>> >> >to hornetq. 2(3) was the intent.
>> >> >
>> >> >cheers,
>> >> >Gary.
>> >> >
>> >> >On 8 April 2015 at 15:46, Chris Mattmann <mattmann@apache.org>
wrote:
>> >> >> Hi Everyone,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> These are my following concerns as an ASF director that the ActiveMQ
>> >> >> community needs to address.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1. RH has a product, called HornetQ, which includes a website;
>> >> >> branding, etc.  http://hornetq.jboss.org/
>> >> >>
>> >> >> At a minimum this is an extreme branding confusion if this is
>> >> >> ActiveMQ 6 and even more so if there is a HornetQ branch in an
>> >> >> Apache code repo. We don’t allow companies to come into Apache
and
>> >> >> create confusion by importing their *still existing* products into
>> >> >> our neutral zone at the ASF and then keep maintaining their external
>> >> >> websites and so forth. This needs to be rectified, ASAP.  If HornetQ
>> >> >> exists in an Apache repo (which it does right now) -
>> >>hornetq.jboss.org
>> >> >> needs to go away at a date identified by the PMC in its next board
>> >> >> report.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2. The ActiveMQ PMC needs to deliver a plan for: (1) keeping the
>> >> >>community
>> >> >> as 1 project with multiple “products”; or (2) spinning out
HornetQ
>> >>into
>> >> >> Incubator or straight to TLP; or (3) keeping the community as 1
>> >>project
>> >> >> with a single “product”. These are the only options. A choice
must
>> >> >> be identified and made by the PMC in its next board report.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I would strongly encourage the community also to think about the
>> >> >> role of the PMC chair in all of this. To that point, the current
>> >> >> chair has been the chair for *many* years and based on the current
>> >> >> status and issues in the community, I would strongly suggest having
>> >> >> a plan for potentially replacing the chair of the project. It’s
a
>> >> >> healthy thing to do and these community issues may be better
>> >> >> identified by some fresh blood and energy. I fully expect the above
>> >> >> issues to be discussed, and identified between now and April 22
>> >> >> which is the next board meeting and the PMC’s report.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >> Chris
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
>> >> >> Reply-To: <dev@activemq.apache.org>
>> >> >> Date: Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:03 PM
>> >> >> To: <board@apache.org>, ActiveMQ-Developers <dev@activemq.apache.org
>> >
>> >> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS} HornetQ & ActiveMQ's next generation
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Please note: earlier messages Jim has sent were as "Jim, the
>> >>individual"
>> >> >>>using his years of experience at Apache to review the situation,
and
>> >>to
>> >> >>>provide feedback. Chris Mattman has also been assisting lately;
>> >>again,
>> >> >>>as
>> >> >>>"Chris, the individual".
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>This message below is on **behalf of the Board**. Jim may have
been
>> >>the
>> >> >>>messenger, but what is happening in Apache ActiveMQ is now a
specific
>> >> >>>concern of the Board. As such, it needs to be addressed per
Jim's
>> >>note.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Regards,
>> >> >>>Greg Stein
>> >> >>>ASF Director, and Vice Chairman
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com>
>> >>wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> 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.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>



-- 
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com

Mime
View raw message