activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org>
Subject FW: ActiveMQ board report concerns
Date Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:53:29 GMT
David Nalley from the Board had the action
to deal with the ActiveMQ situation as the
Board shepherd this month. He suggested some
things that we expect to see going forward
including monthly reports.

Please add Arthur’s concerns below to the
list of things that I will as a board member
like to see addressed before the report ideally,
but at worst during the next board report.

Cheers,
Chris





-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Naseef <art@amlinv.com>
Reply-To: "board@apache.org" <board@apache.org>
Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 11:01 AM
To: "board@apache.org" <board@apache.org>
Subject: Fwd: ActiveMQ board report concerns

>Apache Board Members:
>
>
>
>
>
>As I believe you are aware, I am working on the ActiveMQ PMC and
>attempting to contribute to the board report and have a concern with the
>progress on the report, and specifically edits recently made.
>
>
>
>
>Given the minimal nature of the initial board report, and the fact it
>lacked a balanced reporting of the status of the project, and
>in-particular, failed to address the tough issues facing the ActiveMQ
>PMC, I added the following to the draft report:
>
>
>
>At least one member of the PMC, as well as several members of the
>community, feels strongly that disagreements and concerns are not getting
>addressed in a manner
> that will move the community toward consensus.
>
>
>
>
>It has since been reworded as follows, after I asked Hiram to include a
>statement covering Hadrian's additional concerns:
>
>At least one member of the PMC, as well as several members of the
>
>community, feels strongly that disagreements and concerns are not
>getting addressed.  They would rather have Artemis go through the
>incubator. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The wording I added to the report has been changed in a way that
>significantly changes its meaning.  Being able to reach consensus is very
>important. 
> Having disagreements is actually a great thing - if we work together
>toward resolution and learning from one another, but that is not
>happening.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>To review the history of the document, the page history at the following
>link can be used:
>
>
>
>
>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=55155578
>
>
>
>
>
>This change concerns me as it appears to be another attempt to wash-over
>and minimize concerns.  I have tried many times to get concerns and
>discussion
> moving in a positive direction, but after seeing no real progress, and
>only receiving lip service ("thank you Art" followed by lack of
>follow-through and then finally aggressive responses), I truly believe
>the original statement hits the core of the problem.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Note that while I would like to give Hiram the benefit of the doubt on
>this change, I just cannot.  Given the state of affairs, and the fact he
> was involved in discussions related to my edit, it appears to be at
>least a gross error and at worst an outright manipulation.  I have no
>confidence in Hiram and Bruce to produce balanced reports.  To confirm
>the involvement of both Bruce and Hiram related
> to my updates, please see the following:
>
>
>
>Private discussion titled, "Re: [CONF] Apache ActiveMQ > Apache ActiveMQ
>Board Report - 2015.04 (April)" started by email from Bruce to
>private@activemq.apache.org on April 17th.
>
>
>Also please note the draft report appears to have moved back to the
>boards:
>
>
>
>http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/REPORT-Apache-ActiveMQ-td4695352.htm
>l
>
>
>I am all for vigorous discussion, and I believe Stephen covey had it
>right when he said that when people are emotional, they are not rational.
> That's clearly the
> case here.  Somehow though, we never manage to move past the emotional
>outbursts long enough to make real progress.  I'm very, very tired.  Just
>keeping up with the deluge of comments is hard.  Feeling outnumbered
>5-to-1 doesn't help, especially when different
> folks appear from different directions changing the focus of the
>discussion repeatedly.
>
>It's almost a bad movie.  Yet it's the true history.  A review of the
>HawtIO discussion from last year will show the same.  Once HawtIO "lost",
>all
> the players disappeared.  Nothing of benefit followed, with the
>exception of a few small efforts to clean up the existing console - to
>which none of the HawtIO-defenders contributed in spite of the extreme
>statements of the terrible state of the console.
>
>
>It is my sincere hope that we can get the ActiveMQ project back into a
>healthy state  with involvement from a diverse set of people who work
>together and synergize.
> And, if the Artemis broker eventually takes over the market, I'm truly
>fine with that.  Please help bring the community back to a rational
>state, move toward a healthy culture of cooperation and open discussion,
>and help to cut off the roots of poison.
>
>
>
>
>Thank you.
>Art
>
>
>
>
>



Mime
View raw message