activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martyn Taylor <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6
Date Thu, 07 Dec 2017 14:43:20 GMT
You continue to make more accusations, justifying yourself by accusing me
of being disingenuous.  These statements are just plain ignorant.  They
don't warrant a sensible response.

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <> wrote:

> Martyn, you continue to misrepresent things.

> When we say RH on this thread it's pretty clear what it means. It was said
> before, we prefer to use this term to refer to a group that does have an
> agenda.

There are a few people who refuse to have conversations that ignore the
> elephant in the room.
> So, RH. I have nothing but respect for RedHat Software, Inc. I have
> friends over there, I know its culture, I was invited to some of its
> events, I *recommend* some of its products. Great company, friendly to open
> source, sponsor of the ASF.
> The RH clique in this thread refers to a group of people who, in my
> experience, are pushing an agenda. You claim that Artemis has fantastic
> technical merits. Fine. In the open source world, pay attention, value is
> given by adoption. Not by marketing materials, not by what managers say,
> *adoption*! ActiveMQ proved that, Camel did, Karaf did, CXF did. Heck,
> HTTPD did, Hadoop+Spark big data ecosystem, Maven, they all did, by getting
> adoption.
> HornetQ/Artemis has its chance, it's on equal footing. All this
> conversation points to a belief of the said clique that lives in an echo
> chamber that the *only* way to get adoption for Artemis is to steal the
> ActiveMQ name, buy replacing it. The only tool said clique has (and had) is
> overwhelming veto power in the PMC (Bruce mentioned it yesterday that
> technically the vote could pass, but he knows very well what would happen
> next). I asked you, and the -1s got reversed in an amusing way, if you want
> to grow Artemis inside or outside the ActiveMQ community. So you don't want
> to go TLP (I expected that) because like I was told in the past what you
> want is the ActiveMQ brand. And the more sad reason for that (I know
> outraged replies will follow), is that the issue is you promising something
> to your managers and thy bought into your ideas the hinge on stealing
> (basically) ActiveMQ. It's not RedHat Software, Inc's fault, it's all on
> you. And now you're in a bind. Even scarier is that the market, see AWS
> seems, to validate the value of ActiveMQ (the real one, 5.x).
> So, I dare you to prove me wrong, and prove the Artemis value by
> increasing adoption. Bonus points for doing it without abusing the ActiveMQ
> brand. Or you can try abusing of your voting power. But you'd gain more
> respect from building technology of undeniable value, like many of the ASF
> projects.
> Hadrian
> On 12/07/2017 06:26 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>> To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the accusations made in this
>> thread.
>> After the last round of accusations of Red Hat are pushing through their
>> own agenda, I'm sad to see it happening again.  I continue to use my Red
>> Hat email address in public discussions, in my PR requests and review.
>> I've nothing to hide nor am I ashamed to be employed by a company like Red
>> Hat.  My legions lie with ActiveMQ and making the project and community a
>> better place.  I've put so much personal and emotional effort into this
>> project.  To have my votes and opinions abrogated just because I work for
>> a
>> certain company I find shocking and not at all democratic.
>> Actually, looking back through this vote thread to the people who voted
>> +1,
>> who were accused of pushing an alternate agenda are actually the same
>> people who I see involved in the community on a day to day basis.  The
>> same
>> people fixing bugs, answering user questions and doing releases.  And
>> they're not all employed by the same company.
>> If people want to vote -1 to this, fair enough you're entitled to your
>> vote
>> and I have no issue.  But, all this talk about companies pushing an
>> agenda,
>> seems to me to be a bit of a guise to detract away from the actual subject
>> in hand.  TBH, I am sick of hearing about it.
>> I respect the result of the vote.
>> I am -1 on the idea of making Artemis TLP.
>> I am +1  on Bruce's suggestion on creating a Roadmap.  I think this is
>> really what we need right now.
>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Michael André Pearce <
>>> wrote:
>> On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an overhaul
>>> and design inline with the new logo.
>>> Mike
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder <> wrote:
>>>> I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take on
>>>> this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more
>>> prominent
>>>> on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
>>>> separate discussion around this.
>>>> More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
>>>> Bruce
>>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
>>>>> I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this
>>>>> thread:
>>>>> - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
>>>>> - Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
>>>>> forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
>>>>>    ... any volunteers here?
>>>>>    ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the
>>>>> confluent
>>>>> wiki.
>>>>> - Have more discussions on the dev list
>>>> --
>>>> 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:
>>>> Blog: <>
>>>> Twitter:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message