activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jgenender <jgenen...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6
Date Wed, 06 Dec 2017 20:11:03 GMT
BRUCE!!! o/  Good to see you!


Bruce Snyder wrote
> I disagree with discussing or even considering anything the vendors want
> to
> do. Even when I worked for LogicBlaze and then IONA, I disagreed with
> trying to drive our company agenda via the Apache ActiveMQ project. But
> given that employees of different companies participate in Apache
> ActiveMQ,
> I can't control them and I won't let their company agendas control the
> Apache ActiveMQ project.

Unfortunately its the elephant in the room and there is clear evidence of
the confusion going on.  That evidence was posted above, so it should be
discussed as its cornerstone to being part of the problem.  Not to mention
it was central focus to the discussions that occurred at ActiveMQ (and
Camel, etc) in the past.

Perhaps that discussion is not meant for dev and is a PMC issue.  But it
certainly is a reason for some of the kinks in the armor.  Bottom line is
their is certainly confusion in the community.


Bruce Snyder wrote
> I had no idea that Clebert was going to call for a vote until I saw it in
> flight early this morning. So, I thought, 'well, what the fuck, I'll
> vote'.
> Although Clebert works for Red Hat, he does not care what they do or why
> they do it. His full-time job is working on Artemis and he is passionate
> about it. Unfortunately, his passion and eagerness get the best of him
> sometimes causing him to take action as best he knows. Also consider that
> Clebert is not very knowledgeable about the ASF and ways of the ActiveMQ
> project.
> 
> With my thought to step forward and create the roadmap, I intend to work
> with anyone who wants to participate to identify the tasks to be addressed
> to have Artemis match some level of parity with ActiveMQ with the goal of
> eventually having Artemis become ActiveMQ 6.x. I hold no preconceived
> notions about this effort or the time it will take, it could take another
> year or two years, I have no idea.

and this is what its all about ;-) Community and moving forward.  I do think
that Artemis should have more prominence on the ActiveMQ web site to show
its a strong part of the ActiveMQ family.  What we don't want to do is have
Artemis be another Apollo (supposed AMQ6 and ultimately abandoned).  So
IMHO, we should make Artemis more strongly associated with the ActiveMQ
project off its parent and build it from there.  Begin on the adoption and
migration path and get that community going.  Then its all good and everyone
is happy.  With that growth, perhaps Artemis WILL be the new ActiveMQ 6. :-)

Side note: Clebert is a great guy and one of the folks who I do see who
cares about the community and the code.  I'm not throwing anyone else under
the bus by comparison, but he has made it clear that he places Apache first
in past discussions.  For this its good to have him working with all of this
and I do know his intentions were benevolent and not that of his employer.  

Jeff



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Mime
View raw message