You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> on 2015/04/17 16:03:05 UTC
Special Board Report
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
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
If I might poke my nose in ...
What the board wants is a report that addresses the path forward with
the HornetQ code, sure, but more importantly, addresses the concerns
raised by the minority voice in the community about whether that
minority voice is being heard, and how that is going to be addressed.
I'm sure you've heard the mantra - the board isn't so concerned with
technical decisions as with matters of community and project
sustainability and independence.
--Rich
On 04/20/2015 05:32 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
> Except that I made a request that is ignored, at least so far. I am also
> curious why my request is constantly ignored.
>
> 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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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
>>>>>> <hi...@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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com - @rbowen
http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Except that I made a request that is ignored, at least so far. I am also
curious why my request is constantly ignored.
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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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 <hi...@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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Clebert, it's not about you. Nobody has anything against you as a person.
>
Remember one thing please, I joined ASF as an individual. I signed the
contributor's agreement as Clebert Suconic. RedHat donated the code,
but I'm an individual contributing.. hence I'm doing it as Clebert.
You my say that Red Hat pays my salary, I agree... but that's a
different thing... I'm exercising my will here as an individual.
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Clebert, it's not about you. Nobody has anything against you as a person.
Hadrian
On 04/20/2015 09:06 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>> Why not be open about it, advocate for it, work for it and build consensus and acceptance instead of putting everybody in front of a 'take it or leave it' choice.
>
> Can you be more specific?
>
> first I'm not sure where I have not been open about anything I'm
> doing... I have a JIRA for every commit I make, and I have been more
> vocal about everything I do actually...
>
> It seems that you are referring to things that happened long ago
> before I even joined the ASF. if that's the case I have no control
> over what happened in the past, and I would appreciate if I was judged
> by my own mistakes on that case (at least I would be able to amend my
> own mistakes).
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Look Hiram, there already is consensus around changing the name to a code
>> name. In my opinion, still not enough.
>>
>> The plan to merge HornetQ into ActiveMQ didn't bother me either, I voted for
>> it in the beginning. What bothers me a lot, is what I perceive as a sneaky
>> way to go about it. Why not be open about it, advocate for it, work for it
>> and build consensus and acceptance instead of putting everybody in front of
>> a 'take it or leave it' choice. That's what rubbed me the wrong way. That's
>> really not like the ASF I know. That's why I made a conscious decision to be
>> vocal about it and, in my mind, do my best to protect this community. This
>> may cost me some personal relations, with people like you who are really
>> extremely intelligent and still do respect (hopefully not if you can
>> distinguish between the person and the ideas). And you Hiram, in particular,
>> were very civil in expressing your different views, which I, personally,
>> highly appreciate.
>>
>> Maybe I am wrong, maybe not, who knows...
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04/20/2015 08:30 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps this just means your failing to build a consensus around your
>>> view point?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Except that the discussion was started weeks ago and questions are
>>>> constantly ignored.
>>>>
>>>> Hadrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 04/20/2015 07:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uhm, what were we doing for the past 2 weeks? On two lists, multiple
>>>>>> threads?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume you are aware of my recommendation to have hornetq grow
>>>>>> independently in the incubator. That proposal was rejected, but no
>>>>>> reason
>>>>>> given besides that the RH engineers would have to do the work twice. My
>>>>>> request was to include that in the report (or whatever other reason
>>>>>> might
>>>>>> exist). The way it looks is that Fuse/RH/(the Damarillo group), anyway
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> want to describe that faction is dead set on replacing the existing
>>>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>>>> with HornetQ (or whatever code name) in version 6 or 10. By keeping
>>>>>> HornetQ
>>>>>> under the ActiveMQ PMC influence its future will be heavily influenced
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> the already biased PMC and at the same time hide the lack of diversity
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> HornetQ. In the incubator, HornetQ will have the opportunity and
>>>>>> freedom
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> grow in any direction and build a diverse community.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We've had lots folks from different companies agree with the direction
>>>>> that code contribution is going in. The fact that pin it on
>>>>> 'Fuse/RH/(the Damarillo group)' is very disingenuous and I think a
>>>>> poisonous position to take. I guess we just need to agree to disagree
>>>>> on this point.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since there is all this concern about the viral nature of the plan, why
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> allow HornetQ to take its course, build more diversity in the ActiveMQ
>>>>>> community (actually both) and influence it based on technical merits
>>>>>> instead
>>>>>> of abundance of votes?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please start a discussion thread with your proposal and lets see if
>>>>> consensus can be built around it. This is how it's normally done.
>>>>> You can't just complain that you don't agree with how things are going
>>>>> and then cry that some evil conspiracy is underway.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that clarify my request?
>>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/20/2015 05:51 PM, Bruce Snyder 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
>>>>>>> <hi...@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 <hz...@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
>>>>>>>>>> <hz...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> <hz...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hi...@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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
> Why not be open about it, advocate for it, work for it and build consensus and acceptance instead of putting everybody in front of a 'take it or leave it' choice.
Can you be more specific?
first I'm not sure where I have not been open about anything I'm
doing... I have a JIRA for every commit I make, and I have been more
vocal about everything I do actually...
It seems that you are referring to things that happened long ago
before I even joined the ASF. if that's the case I have no control
over what happened in the past, and I would appreciate if I was judged
by my own mistakes on that case (at least I would be able to amend my
own mistakes).
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Look Hiram, there already is consensus around changing the name to a code
> name. In my opinion, still not enough.
>
> The plan to merge HornetQ into ActiveMQ didn't bother me either, I voted for
> it in the beginning. What bothers me a lot, is what I perceive as a sneaky
> way to go about it. Why not be open about it, advocate for it, work for it
> and build consensus and acceptance instead of putting everybody in front of
> a 'take it or leave it' choice. That's what rubbed me the wrong way. That's
> really not like the ASF I know. That's why I made a conscious decision to be
> vocal about it and, in my mind, do my best to protect this community. This
> may cost me some personal relations, with people like you who are really
> extremely intelligent and still do respect (hopefully not if you can
> distinguish between the person and the ideas). And you Hiram, in particular,
> were very civil in expressing your different views, which I, personally,
> highly appreciate.
>
> Maybe I am wrong, maybe not, who knows...
> Hadrian
>
>
>
>
> On 04/20/2015 08:30 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps this just means your failing to build a consensus around your
>> view point?
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Except that the discussion was started weeks ago and questions are
>>> constantly ignored.
>>>
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/20/2015 07:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Uhm, what were we doing for the past 2 weeks? On two lists, multiple
>>>>> threads?
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume you are aware of my recommendation to have hornetq grow
>>>>> independently in the incubator. That proposal was rejected, but no
>>>>> reason
>>>>> given besides that the RH engineers would have to do the work twice. My
>>>>> request was to include that in the report (or whatever other reason
>>>>> might
>>>>> exist). The way it looks is that Fuse/RH/(the Damarillo group), anyway
>>>>> you
>>>>> want to describe that faction is dead set on replacing the existing
>>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>>> with HornetQ (or whatever code name) in version 6 or 10. By keeping
>>>>> HornetQ
>>>>> under the ActiveMQ PMC influence its future will be heavily influenced
>>>>> by
>>>>> the already biased PMC and at the same time hide the lack of diversity
>>>>> in
>>>>> HornetQ. In the incubator, HornetQ will have the opportunity and
>>>>> freedom
>>>>> to
>>>>> grow in any direction and build a diverse community.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We've had lots folks from different companies agree with the direction
>>>> that code contribution is going in. The fact that pin it on
>>>> 'Fuse/RH/(the Damarillo group)' is very disingenuous and I think a
>>>> poisonous position to take. I guess we just need to agree to disagree
>>>> on this point.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since there is all this concern about the viral nature of the plan, why
>>>>> not
>>>>> allow HornetQ to take its course, build more diversity in the ActiveMQ
>>>>> community (actually both) and influence it based on technical merits
>>>>> instead
>>>>> of abundance of votes?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please start a discussion thread with your proposal and lets see if
>>>> consensus can be built around it. This is how it's normally done.
>>>> You can't just complain that you don't agree with how things are going
>>>> and then cry that some evil conspiracy is underway.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that clarify my request?
>>>>> Hadrian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/20/2015 05:51 PM, Bruce Snyder 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
>>>>>> <hi...@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 <hz...@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
>>>>>>>>> <hz...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> <hz...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <hi...@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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Look Hiram, there already is consensus around changing the name to a
code name. In my opinion, still not enough.
The plan to merge HornetQ into ActiveMQ didn't bother me either, I voted
for it in the beginning. What bothers me a lot, is what I perceive as a
sneaky way to go about it. Why not be open about it, advocate for it,
work for it and build consensus and acceptance instead of putting
everybody in front of a 'take it or leave it' choice. That's what rubbed
me the wrong way. That's really not like the ASF I know. That's why I
made a conscious decision to be vocal about it and, in my mind, do my
best to protect this community. This may cost me some personal
relations, with people like you who are really extremely intelligent and
still do respect (hopefully not if you can distinguish between the
person and the ideas). And you Hiram, in particular, were very civil in
expressing your different views, which I, personally, highly appreciate.
Maybe I am wrong, maybe not, who knows...
Hadrian
On 04/20/2015 08:30 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> Perhaps this just means your failing to build a consensus around your
> view point?
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Except that the discussion was started weeks ago and questions are
>> constantly ignored.
>>
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>> On 04/20/2015 07:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Uhm, what were we doing for the past 2 weeks? On two lists, multiple
>>>> threads?
>>>>
>>>> I assume you are aware of my recommendation to have hornetq grow
>>>> independently in the incubator. That proposal was rejected, but no reason
>>>> given besides that the RH engineers would have to do the work twice. My
>>>> request was to include that in the report (or whatever other reason might
>>>> exist). The way it looks is that Fuse/RH/(the Damarillo group), anyway
>>>> you
>>>> want to describe that faction is dead set on replacing the existing
>>>> ActiveMQ
>>>> with HornetQ (or whatever code name) in version 6 or 10. By keeping
>>>> HornetQ
>>>> under the ActiveMQ PMC influence its future will be heavily influenced by
>>>> the already biased PMC and at the same time hide the lack of diversity in
>>>> HornetQ. In the incubator, HornetQ will have the opportunity and freedom
>>>> to
>>>> grow in any direction and build a diverse community.
>>>
>>>
>>> We've had lots folks from different companies agree with the direction
>>> that code contribution is going in. The fact that pin it on
>>> 'Fuse/RH/(the Damarillo group)' is very disingenuous and I think a
>>> poisonous position to take. I guess we just need to agree to disagree
>>> on this point.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since there is all this concern about the viral nature of the plan, why
>>>> not
>>>> allow HornetQ to take its course, build more diversity in the ActiveMQ
>>>> community (actually both) and influence it based on technical merits
>>>> instead
>>>> of abundance of votes?
>>>
>>>
>>> Please start a discussion thread with your proposal and lets see if
>>> consensus can be built around it. This is how it's normally done.
>>> You can't just complain that you don't agree with how things are going
>>> and then cry that some evil conspiracy is underway.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does that clarify my request?
>>>> Hadrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 04/20/2015 05:51 PM, Bruce Snyder 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 <hi...@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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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
>>>>>>>>>> <hz...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>> <hi...@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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
Perhaps this just means your failing to build a consensus around your
view point?
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Except that the discussion was started weeks ago and questions are
> constantly ignored.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 04/20/2015 07:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Uhm, what were we doing for the past 2 weeks? On two lists, multiple
>>> threads?
>>>
>>> I assume you are aware of my recommendation to have hornetq grow
>>> independently in the incubator. That proposal was rejected, but no reason
>>> given besides that the RH engineers would have to do the work twice. My
>>> request was to include that in the report (or whatever other reason might
>>> exist). The way it looks is that Fuse/RH/(the Damarillo group), anyway
>>> you
>>> want to describe that faction is dead set on replacing the existing
>>> ActiveMQ
>>> with HornetQ (or whatever code name) in version 6 or 10. By keeping
>>> HornetQ
>>> under the ActiveMQ PMC influence its future will be heavily influenced by
>>> the already biased PMC and at the same time hide the lack of diversity in
>>> HornetQ. In the incubator, HornetQ will have the opportunity and freedom
>>> to
>>> grow in any direction and build a diverse community.
>>
>>
>> We've had lots folks from different companies agree with the direction
>> that code contribution is going in. The fact that pin it on
>> 'Fuse/RH/(the Damarillo group)' is very disingenuous and I think a
>> poisonous position to take. I guess we just need to agree to disagree
>> on this point.
>>
>>>
>>> Since there is all this concern about the viral nature of the plan, why
>>> not
>>> allow HornetQ to take its course, build more diversity in the ActiveMQ
>>> community (actually both) and influence it based on technical merits
>>> instead
>>> of abundance of votes?
>>
>>
>> Please start a discussion thread with your proposal and lets see if
>> consensus can be built around it. This is how it's normally done.
>> You can't just complain that you don't agree with how things are going
>> and then cry that some evil conspiracy is underway.
>>
>>>
>>> Does that clarify my request?
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/20/2015 05:51 PM, Bruce Snyder 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 <hi...@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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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
>>>>>>>>> <hz...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> <hi...@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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>.
Well, they are frequently pointed out as being voiced by a “couple” of dissenters and claims that those dissenters are calling the RH side evil. It’s a nice debate tactic completely avoiding the actual points at hand.
There have been valid questions, voiced by more than a couple that more often than not result in attacks on the poster or question instead of actually addressing the point at hand. So much that I stopped bothering and sent my issues and questions directly to a board member.
> On Apr 20, 2015, at 8:15 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Except that the discussion was started weeks ago and questions are constantly ignored.
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Except that the discussion was started weeks ago and questions are
constantly ignored.
Hadrian
On 04/20/2015 07:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Uhm, what were we doing for the past 2 weeks? On two lists, multiple
>> threads?
>>
>> I assume you are aware of my recommendation to have hornetq grow
>> independently in the incubator. That proposal was rejected, but no reason
>> given besides that the RH engineers would have to do the work twice. My
>> request was to include that in the report (or whatever other reason might
>> exist). The way it looks is that Fuse/RH/(the Damarillo group), anyway you
>> want to describe that faction is dead set on replacing the existing ActiveMQ
>> with HornetQ (or whatever code name) in version 6 or 10. By keeping HornetQ
>> under the ActiveMQ PMC influence its future will be heavily influenced by
>> the already biased PMC and at the same time hide the lack of diversity in
>> HornetQ. In the incubator, HornetQ will have the opportunity and freedom to
>> grow in any direction and build a diverse community.
>
> We've had lots folks from different companies agree with the direction
> that code contribution is going in. The fact that pin it on
> 'Fuse/RH/(the Damarillo group)' is very disingenuous and I think a
> poisonous position to take. I guess we just need to agree to disagree
> on this point.
>
>>
>> Since there is all this concern about the viral nature of the plan, why not
>> allow HornetQ to take its course, build more diversity in the ActiveMQ
>> community (actually both) and influence it based on technical merits instead
>> of abundance of votes?
>
> Please start a discussion thread with your proposal and lets see if
> consensus can be built around it. This is how it's normally done.
> You can't just complain that you don't agree with how things are going
> and then cry that some evil conspiracy is underway.
>
>>
>> Does that clarify my request?
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04/20/2015 05:51 PM, Bruce Snyder 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 <hi...@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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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
>>>>>>>>>> <hi...@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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Uhm, what were we doing for the past 2 weeks? On two lists, multiple
> threads?
>
> I assume you are aware of my recommendation to have hornetq grow
> independently in the incubator. That proposal was rejected, but no reason
> given besides that the RH engineers would have to do the work twice. My
> request was to include that in the report (or whatever other reason might
> exist). The way it looks is that Fuse/RH/(the Damarillo group), anyway you
> want to describe that faction is dead set on replacing the existing ActiveMQ
> with HornetQ (or whatever code name) in version 6 or 10. By keeping HornetQ
> under the ActiveMQ PMC influence its future will be heavily influenced by
> the already biased PMC and at the same time hide the lack of diversity in
> HornetQ. In the incubator, HornetQ will have the opportunity and freedom to
> grow in any direction and build a diverse community.
We've had lots folks from different companies agree with the direction
that code contribution is going in. The fact that pin it on
'Fuse/RH/(the Damarillo group)' is very disingenuous and I think a
poisonous position to take. I guess we just need to agree to disagree
on this point.
>
> Since there is all this concern about the viral nature of the plan, why not
> allow HornetQ to take its course, build more diversity in the ActiveMQ
> community (actually both) and influence it based on technical merits instead
> of abundance of votes?
Please start a discussion thread with your proposal and lets see if
consensus can be built around it. This is how it's normally done.
You can't just complain that you don't agree with how things are going
and then cry that some evil conspiracy is underway.
>
> Does that clarify my request?
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On 04/20/2015 05:51 PM, Bruce Snyder 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 <hi...@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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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
>>>>>>>>> <hi...@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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Exactly. Thanks!
Hadrian
On 04/20/2015 07:50 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> HornetQ can incubate (as the chosen code name) with full intentions of
> graduating as a sub project. No rework would be required.
>
> We would obviously strongly encourage members from AMQ to assist with the
> mentoring.
>
> John
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:16 PM James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
> wrote:
>
>> For what it's worth, I agree with Hadrian that HornetQ should go to the
>> incubator. The fact that I gave up on pushing the issue doesn't mean I
>> don't think that's the right course of action. It just didn't seem like it
>> was going to happen.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:46 PM Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Uhm, what were we doing for the past 2 weeks? On two lists, multiple
>>> threads?
>>>
>>> I assume you are aware of my recommendation to have hornetq grow
>>> independently in the incubator. That proposal was rejected, but no
>>> reason given besides that the RH engineers would have to do the work
>>> twice. My request was to include that in the report (or whatever other
>>> reason might exist). The way it looks is that Fuse/RH/(the Damarillo
>>> group), anyway you want to describe that faction is dead set on
>>> replacing the existing ActiveMQ with HornetQ (or whatever code name) in
>>> version 6 or 10. By keeping HornetQ under the ActiveMQ PMC influence its
>>> future will be heavily influenced by the already biased PMC and at the
>>> same time hide the lack of diversity in HornetQ. In the incubator,
>>> HornetQ will have the opportunity and freedom to grow in any direction
>>> and build a diverse community.
>>>
>>> Since there is all this concern about the viral nature of the plan, why
>>> not allow HornetQ to take its course, build more diversity in the
>>> ActiveMQ community (actually both) and influence it based on technical
>>> merits instead of abundance of votes?
>>>
>>> Does that clarify my request?
>>> Hadrian
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/20/2015 05:51 PM, Bruce Snyder 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 <hz...@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
>>>>>>>>>>> <hi...@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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
HornetQ can incubate (as the chosen code name) with full intentions of
graduating as a sub project. No rework would be required.
We would obviously strongly encourage members from AMQ to assist with the
mentoring.
John
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:16 PM James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
wrote:
> For what it's worth, I agree with Hadrian that HornetQ should go to the
> incubator. The fact that I gave up on pushing the issue doesn't mean I
> don't think that's the right course of action. It just didn't seem like it
> was going to happen.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:46 PM Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Uhm, what were we doing for the past 2 weeks? On two lists, multiple
> > threads?
> >
> > I assume you are aware of my recommendation to have hornetq grow
> > independently in the incubator. That proposal was rejected, but no
> > reason given besides that the RH engineers would have to do the work
> > twice. My request was to include that in the report (or whatever other
> > reason might exist). The way it looks is that Fuse/RH/(the Damarillo
> > group), anyway you want to describe that faction is dead set on
> > replacing the existing ActiveMQ with HornetQ (or whatever code name) in
> > version 6 or 10. By keeping HornetQ under the ActiveMQ PMC influence its
> > future will be heavily influenced by the already biased PMC and at the
> > same time hide the lack of diversity in HornetQ. In the incubator,
> > HornetQ will have the opportunity and freedom to grow in any direction
> > and build a diverse community.
> >
> > Since there is all this concern about the viral nature of the plan, why
> > not allow HornetQ to take its course, build more diversity in the
> > ActiveMQ community (actually both) and influence it based on technical
> > merits instead of abundance of votes?
> >
> > Does that clarify my request?
> > Hadrian
> >
> >
> > On 04/20/2015 05:51 PM, Bruce Snyder 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 <hz...@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
> > >>>>>>>> <hi...@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
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
For what it's worth, I agree with Hadrian that HornetQ should go to the
incubator. The fact that I gave up on pushing the issue doesn't mean I
don't think that's the right course of action. It just didn't seem like it
was going to happen.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:46 PM Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Uhm, what were we doing for the past 2 weeks? On two lists, multiple
> threads?
>
> I assume you are aware of my recommendation to have hornetq grow
> independently in the incubator. That proposal was rejected, but no
> reason given besides that the RH engineers would have to do the work
> twice. My request was to include that in the report (or whatever other
> reason might exist). The way it looks is that Fuse/RH/(the Damarillo
> group), anyway you want to describe that faction is dead set on
> replacing the existing ActiveMQ with HornetQ (or whatever code name) in
> version 6 or 10. By keeping HornetQ under the ActiveMQ PMC influence its
> future will be heavily influenced by the already biased PMC and at the
> same time hide the lack of diversity in HornetQ. In the incubator,
> HornetQ will have the opportunity and freedom to grow in any direction
> and build a diverse community.
>
> Since there is all this concern about the viral nature of the plan, why
> not allow HornetQ to take its course, build more diversity in the
> ActiveMQ community (actually both) and influence it based on technical
> merits instead of abundance of votes?
>
> Does that clarify my request?
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 04/20/2015 05:51 PM, Bruce Snyder 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 <hi...@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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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
> >>>>>>>> <hi...@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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
Uhm, what were we doing for the past 2 weeks? On two lists, multiple
threads?
I assume you are aware of my recommendation to have hornetq grow
independently in the incubator. That proposal was rejected, but no
reason given besides that the RH engineers would have to do the work
twice. My request was to include that in the report (or whatever other
reason might exist). The way it looks is that Fuse/RH/(the Damarillo
group), anyway you want to describe that faction is dead set on
replacing the existing ActiveMQ with HornetQ (or whatever code name) in
version 6 or 10. By keeping HornetQ under the ActiveMQ PMC influence its
future will be heavily influenced by the already biased PMC and at the
same time hide the lack of diversity in HornetQ. In the incubator,
HornetQ will have the opportunity and freedom to grow in any direction
and build a diverse community.
Since there is all this concern about the viral nature of the plan, why
not allow HornetQ to take its course, build more diversity in the
ActiveMQ community (actually both) and influence it based on technical
merits instead of abundance of votes?
Does that clarify my request?
Hadrian
On 04/20/2015 05:51 PM, Bruce Snyder 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 <hi...@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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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
>>>>>>>> <hi...@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
>>
>
>
>
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.com>.
> No crossover at all is not consolidation. The propose release was completely done by a team independent of the AMQ5 team.
I understand your point, but it doesn't cause me any alarm. I see consolidation as a process. I outlined a few reasons for why I thought the crossover was limited at this point. I expect it to get better as time passes.
Justin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tracy Snell" <ts...@gmail.com>
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 1:24:17 PM
Subject: Re: Special Board Report
> On Apr 21, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.com> wrote:
>
> In my opinion, one could chalk this up to the fact that the two communities are in the process of consolidating.
No crossover at all is not consolidation. The propose release was completely done by a team independent of the AMQ5 team.
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>.
> On Apr 21, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.com> wrote:
>
> In my opinion, one could chalk this up to the fact that the two communities are in the process of consolidating.
No crossover at all is not consolidation. The propose release was completely done by a team independent of the AMQ5 team.
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Justin Bertram <jb...@apache.com>.
> To me it seems like 1 project and 2 teams.
In my opinion, one could chalk this up to the fact that the two communities are in the process of consolidating. It seems natural to me that there would be an initial separation. All the re-branding and transition work for the IP clearance phase is best (and most safely) done by folks already familiar with the code-base so it's not clear to me that the current base of committers on Artemis is problematic. Furthermore, the overall plan for the donated code-base was obviously not communicated with sufficient clarity for all involved and that has almost certainly impacted more wide-spread involvement. Once the plan from the PMC is clear and once ActiveMQ Artemis 1.0 is released (assuming that will be the plan - not something I take for granted) I would expect additional community participation. In fact, I've already seen encouraging signs with Jeff Genender's latest PR and discussion(s) in IRC.
Justin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tracy Snell" <ts...@gmail.com>
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:54:38 AM
Subject: Re: Special Board Report
> On Apr 20, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 20, 2015, at 8:54 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> It was pretty clear from the beginning this was going to be a
>> sub-project and we would incorporate changes.. there was a new repo
>> open, a new JIRA open, new jiras fed... and 205 Pull requests with
>> about 400 committs in 4 months…
>
> Yes. Almost exclusively done by the HornetQ team (going by the commit logs and the team page at HornetQ’s website).
On the committer side of the community here’s a log of AMQ6 (count, committer, affiliation).
[All pages of https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=shortlog <https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=shortlog> pasted into a file then: cut -f 2 | sort | uniq -c and adding affiliation, Yeah, I was too lazy to load the git repo]
Commits
Name
Employer
148
Clebert Suconic
RedHat
HornetQ Commit
133
Martyn Taylor
RedHat
116
Andy Taylor
RedHat
HornetQ Commit
57
jbertram
RedHat
HornetQ Commit
16
Howard Gao
RedHat
HornetQ Commit
2
Robert Gemmell
RedHat
1
Claus Ibsen
RedHat
1
Felix Becker
1
Ivo Studensky
RedHat
1
John D. Ament
1
nberdikov
Of those active only Martyn didn’t have commit on the Jboss HornetQ team (as far as I can tell). It could be that others are contributing code that’s committed by one of the above by why do that if you have commit? On a side note, that’s a LOT of work by the HornetQ guys!
As a comparison here’s the commits to the activemq repo over approximately the same time span.
Commits
Name
98
Timothy Bish
96
gtully
48
Dejan Bosanac
10
Daniel Kulp
8
Claus Ibsen
8
Hadrian Zbarcea
8
artnaseef
6
Christian Posta
5
Hiram Chirino
5
Robert Gemmell
3
Jeff Genender
2
Kevin Earls
1
Arthur Naseef
1
Ciprian Ciubotariu
1
Matt Warhaftig
No crossover (except Claus and I think he somehow finds time to commit code to almost every apache project there is).
To me it seems like 1 project and 2 teams.
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
>Now I have stop being a squeaky wheel. It's sad to notice that some interests seem to be clouding common sense. Why didn't you > guys admit a few weeks back that it was a mistake? Actually, when did you realize it was a mistake?
We actually did right away, remember?...We tried to rename it to
6.0.0.M1... (not final any longer... we would have M2, M3... until it
was ready to be released).
But these email threads get so long that 3 days ago seem 1 year ago.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So far so good. And there was a recommendation to change the name. Do you
> remember what happened next?
>
> There was a claim that hornetq is just another suproject, like other
> ActiveMQ subproject. Except that those are other language bindings,
> complementary to the ActiveMQ (well, except Apollo). This is actually a full
> blown project competing with ActiveMQ (some 6 months ago) and now supposed
> to replace ActiveMQ once everybody gives up. I have never heard of an open
> source project being replaced by another in a future version.
>
> Now I have stop being a squeaky wheel. It's sad to notice that some
> interests seem to be clouding common sense. Why didn't you guys admit a few
> weeks back that it was a mistake? Actually, when did you realize it was a
> mistake?
>
> Hadrian
>
>
>
>
> On 04/20/2015 08:54 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@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.
>>
>>
>> Did you actually read the code or the changes made?
>>
>> It was pretty clear from the beginning this was going to be a
>> sub-project and we would incorporate changes.. there was a new repo
>> open, a new JIRA open, new jiras fed... and 205 Pull requests with
>> about 400 committs in 4 months...
>>
>> We incorporated OpenWire, changed how connection factories are
>> serialized and persisted to be exactly the same as what's done on
>> ActiveMQ5, the server start was recently changed to be exactly as
>> what's done on Apollo, Documentation was changed around a lot to be
>> consistent with Apache brands... etc.. etc.. etc...
>>
>> Nothing different than what agreed was done...
>>
>> Nothing was done behind meeting rooms I assure you.. in fact we were
>> just set to deliver what we agreed as part of the donation, while we
>> were clearing up the Cat-X dependencies and renames.
>>
>> It was a mistake was to call it activemq-6.0.0.. as we knew we were
>> not ready.. it was just the first release..
>>
>>
>> That has been said a few times already, and you ignore these points.
>>
>
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
So far so good. And there was a recommendation to change the name. Do
you remember what happened next?
There was a claim that hornetq is just another suproject, like other
ActiveMQ subproject. Except that those are other language bindings,
complementary to the ActiveMQ (well, except Apollo). This is actually a
full blown project competing with ActiveMQ (some 6 months ago) and now
supposed to replace ActiveMQ once everybody gives up. I have never heard
of an open source project being replaced by another in a future version.
Now I have stop being a squeaky wheel. It's sad to notice that some
interests seem to be clouding common sense. Why didn't you guys admit a
few weeks back that it was a mistake? Actually, when did you realize it
was a mistake?
Hadrian
On 04/20/2015 08:54 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@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.
>
> Did you actually read the code or the changes made?
>
> It was pretty clear from the beginning this was going to be a
> sub-project and we would incorporate changes.. there was a new repo
> open, a new JIRA open, new jiras fed... and 205 Pull requests with
> about 400 committs in 4 months...
>
> We incorporated OpenWire, changed how connection factories are
> serialized and persisted to be exactly the same as what's done on
> ActiveMQ5, the server start was recently changed to be exactly as
> what's done on Apollo, Documentation was changed around a lot to be
> consistent with Apache brands... etc.. etc.. etc...
>
> Nothing different than what agreed was done...
>
> Nothing was done behind meeting rooms I assure you.. in fact we were
> just set to deliver what we agreed as part of the donation, while we
> were clearing up the Cat-X dependencies and renames.
>
> It was a mistake was to call it activemq-6.0.0.. as we knew we were
> not ready.. it was just the first release..
>
>
> That has been said a few times already, and you ignore these points.
>
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
Tracy,
We are getting commits and contributions from those outside the HornetQ
team. It is natural that the majority of work at this point would be
done by those familiar with the code base. The ActiveMQ Artemis project
has only been around for 6 month or so. Therefore every commit on the
code base is reasonably recent. Looking at that list again the
following people, who were not oh the HornetQ have contributed at least
one commit:
Hiram Chirino
Robert Gemmell
nberdikov
Claus Ibsen
Felix Becker
Ivo Studensky
Jeff Genender
John D. Ament
I'm sure that the last 6 months of ActiveMQ commits would tell a similar
story; a few guys who are really familiar with the code base and with a
lot of experience churn out lots of commits. With others contributing
commits as and when they have time. The stats don't show an equal
distribution of work but they do show diversity and interest.
Cheers
Martyn
On 21/04/15 18:59, Tracy Snell wrote:
> Mine were from artemis start until a day or two after the debate began, your’s is for all git history.
>
>> On Apr 21, 2015, at 1:37 PM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I see different lists on both sides:
>>
>>
>> On activemq:
>> $ git shortlog -s -n
>>
>> 1408 Hiram R. Chirino
>> 1201 Gary Tully
>> 1182 Robert Davies
>> 942 Bosanac Dejan
>> 916 James Strachan
>> 843 Timothy A. Bish
>> 368 Timothy Bish
>> 293 gtully
>> 253 Claus Ibsen
>> 183 Adrian T. Co
>> 136 Dejan Bosanac
>> 98 Hiram Chirino
>> 90 Frederick G. Oconer
>> 73 Kevin Earls
>> 59 Jonas B. Lim
>> 55 Hadrian Zbarcea
>> 53 Christian Posta
>> 42 Guillaume Nodet
>> 40 David Jencks
>> 31 Gregory John Wilkins
>> 26 Daniel Kulp
>> 21 rajdavies
>> 20 Nathan Christopher Mittler
>> 18 artnaseef
>> 18 Dhiraj Bokde
>> 17 Jonathan Anstey
>> 17 Torsten Mielke
>> 14 Bruce Snyder
>> 11 Alan Cabrera
>> 9 Darwin G. Flores
>> 9 Willem Ning Jiang
>> 8 Patrick Edward Lapus Villac
>> 8 Joseph Dennis O. Gapuz
>> 8 Rob Davies
>> 7 Brian McCallister
>> 7 Dennis Cook
>> 6 Jeff Genender
>> 5 Robert Gemmell
>> 5 David Blevins
>> 4 Colin W Macnaughton
>> 4 Clebert Suconic
>> 2 Alex Dean
>> 1 Matt Warhaftig
>> 1 Les Hazlewood
>> 1 Krzysztof Sobkowiak
>> 1 Henri Yandell
>> 1 Dain Sundstrom
>> 1 Ciprian Ciubotariu
>> 1 Arthur Naseef
>> 1 Andreas Kuhtz
>> 1 Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>> 1 Jason Sherman
>> 1 James Carman
>> 1 Martyn Taylor
>> 1 James A. Robinson
>>
>>
>>
>> On artemis:
>> $ git shortlog -s -n
>> 161 Clebert Suconic
>> 134 Martyn Taylor
>> 116 Andy Taylor
>> 61 jbertram
>> 15 Howard Gao
>> 3 Hiram Chirino
>> 2 Robert Gemmell
>> 1 gaohoward
>> 1 nberdikov
>> 1 Claus Ibsen
>> 1 Felix Becker
>> 1 Ivo Studensky
>> 1 Jeff Genender
>> 1 John D. Ament
>> 1 Justin Bertram
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>.
Mine were from artemis start until a day or two after the debate began, your’s is for all git history.
> On Apr 21, 2015, at 1:37 PM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I see different lists on both sides:
>
>
> On activemq:
> $ git shortlog -s -n
>
> 1408 Hiram R. Chirino
> 1201 Gary Tully
> 1182 Robert Davies
> 942 Bosanac Dejan
> 916 James Strachan
> 843 Timothy A. Bish
> 368 Timothy Bish
> 293 gtully
> 253 Claus Ibsen
> 183 Adrian T. Co
> 136 Dejan Bosanac
> 98 Hiram Chirino
> 90 Frederick G. Oconer
> 73 Kevin Earls
> 59 Jonas B. Lim
> 55 Hadrian Zbarcea
> 53 Christian Posta
> 42 Guillaume Nodet
> 40 David Jencks
> 31 Gregory John Wilkins
> 26 Daniel Kulp
> 21 rajdavies
> 20 Nathan Christopher Mittler
> 18 artnaseef
> 18 Dhiraj Bokde
> 17 Jonathan Anstey
> 17 Torsten Mielke
> 14 Bruce Snyder
> 11 Alan Cabrera
> 9 Darwin G. Flores
> 9 Willem Ning Jiang
> 8 Patrick Edward Lapus Villac
> 8 Joseph Dennis O. Gapuz
> 8 Rob Davies
> 7 Brian McCallister
> 7 Dennis Cook
> 6 Jeff Genender
> 5 Robert Gemmell
> 5 David Blevins
> 4 Colin W Macnaughton
> 4 Clebert Suconic
> 2 Alex Dean
> 1 Matt Warhaftig
> 1 Les Hazlewood
> 1 Krzysztof Sobkowiak
> 1 Henri Yandell
> 1 Dain Sundstrom
> 1 Ciprian Ciubotariu
> 1 Arthur Naseef
> 1 Andreas Kuhtz
> 1 Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> 1 Jason Sherman
> 1 James Carman
> 1 Martyn Taylor
> 1 James A. Robinson
>
>
>
> On artemis:
> $ git shortlog -s -n
> 161 Clebert Suconic
> 134 Martyn Taylor
> 116 Andy Taylor
> 61 jbertram
> 15 Howard Gao
> 3 Hiram Chirino
> 2 Robert Gemmell
> 1 gaohoward
> 1 nberdikov
> 1 Claus Ibsen
> 1 Felix Becker
> 1 Ivo Studensky
> 1 Jeff Genender
> 1 John D. Ament
> 1 Justin Bertram
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
I see different lists on both sides:
On activemq:
$ git shortlog -s -n
1408 Hiram R. Chirino
1201 Gary Tully
1182 Robert Davies
942 Bosanac Dejan
916 James Strachan
843 Timothy A. Bish
368 Timothy Bish
293 gtully
253 Claus Ibsen
183 Adrian T. Co
136 Dejan Bosanac
98 Hiram Chirino
90 Frederick G. Oconer
73 Kevin Earls
59 Jonas B. Lim
55 Hadrian Zbarcea
53 Christian Posta
42 Guillaume Nodet
40 David Jencks
31 Gregory John Wilkins
26 Daniel Kulp
21 rajdavies
20 Nathan Christopher Mittler
18 artnaseef
18 Dhiraj Bokde
17 Jonathan Anstey
17 Torsten Mielke
14 Bruce Snyder
11 Alan Cabrera
9 Darwin G. Flores
9 Willem Ning Jiang
8 Patrick Edward Lapus Villac
8 Joseph Dennis O. Gapuz
8 Rob Davies
7 Brian McCallister
7 Dennis Cook
6 Jeff Genender
5 Robert Gemmell
5 David Blevins
4 Colin W Macnaughton
4 Clebert Suconic
2 Alex Dean
1 Matt Warhaftig
1 Les Hazlewood
1 Krzysztof Sobkowiak
1 Henri Yandell
1 Dain Sundstrom
1 Ciprian Ciubotariu
1 Arthur Naseef
1 Andreas Kuhtz
1 Jean-Baptiste Onofré
1 Jason Sherman
1 James Carman
1 Martyn Taylor
1 James A. Robinson
On artemis:
$ git shortlog -s -n
161 Clebert Suconic
134 Martyn Taylor
116 Andy Taylor
61 jbertram
15 Howard Gao
3 Hiram Chirino
2 Robert Gemmell
1 gaohoward
1 nberdikov
1 Claus Ibsen
1 Felix Becker
1 Ivo Studensky
1 Jeff Genender
1 John D. Ament
1 Justin Bertram
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>.
> On Apr 20, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 20, 2015, at 8:54 PM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suconic@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> It was pretty clear from the beginning this was going to be a
>> sub-project and we would incorporate changes.. there was a new repo
>> open, a new JIRA open, new jiras fed... and 205 Pull requests with
>> about 400 committs in 4 months…
>
> Yes. Almost exclusively done by the HornetQ team (going by the commit logs and the team page at HornetQ’s website).
On the committer side of the community here’s a log of AMQ6 (count, committer, affiliation).
[All pages of https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=shortlog <https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=shortlog> pasted into a file then: cut -f 2 | sort | uniq -c and adding affiliation, Yeah, I was too lazy to load the git repo]
Commits
Name
Employer
148
Clebert Suconic
RedHat
HornetQ Commit
133
Martyn Taylor
RedHat
116
Andy Taylor
RedHat
HornetQ Commit
57
jbertram
RedHat
HornetQ Commit
16
Howard Gao
RedHat
HornetQ Commit
2
Robert Gemmell
RedHat
1
Claus Ibsen
RedHat
1
Felix Becker
1
Ivo Studensky
RedHat
1
John D. Ament
1
nberdikov
Of those active only Martyn didn’t have commit on the Jboss HornetQ team (as far as I can tell). It could be that others are contributing code that’s committed by one of the above by why do that if you have commit? On a side note, that’s a LOT of work by the HornetQ guys!
As a comparison here’s the commits to the activemq repo over approximately the same time span.
Commits
Name
98
Timothy Bish
96
gtully
48
Dejan Bosanac
10
Daniel Kulp
8
Claus Ibsen
8
Hadrian Zbarcea
8
artnaseef
6
Christian Posta
5
Hiram Chirino
5
Robert Gemmell
3
Jeff Genender
2
Kevin Earls
1
Arthur Naseef
1
Ciprian Ciubotariu
1
Matt Warhaftig
No crossover (except Claus and I think he somehow finds time to commit code to almost every apache project there is).
To me it seems like 1 project and 2 teams.
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Apr 20, 2015 9:36 PM, "Clebert Suconic" <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > Yes. Almost exclusively done by the HornetQ team (going by the commit
logs and the team page at HornetQ’s website).
> >>
>
> That was done this way because we were getting ready for the IP
> Clearance and what was needed for the first release.
> As part of the IP clearance process we were supposed to get rid of
> Cat-X dependencies (the JMS API JAR was LGPL for instance... so we
> needed to find a replacement which was completed by John Ament here.
Its worth pointing out in my opinion that even though I've been named a
JBoss Champion recently, RedHat doesnt pay my salary and had nothing to do
with that API JAR.
John
>
> >> We incorporated OpenWire, changed how connection factories are
> >> serialized and persisted to be exactly the same as what's done on
> >> ActiveMQ5, the server start was recently changed to be exactly as
> >> what's done on Apollo, Documentation was changed around a lot to be
> >> consistent with Apache brands... etc.. etc.. etc…
> >
> > All hard work and looks awesome. Impressive effort. What bothers me is
the we part. The we isn’t the ActiveMQ community as a whole, it’s the
formerly HornetQ community subset. A shocking lack of diversity on the
people front, not the code front.
>
>
> As I said.. that was just the first release... there's a lot more to
> be done.. and we have been pretty open about inviting people to join
> the effort.
>
> The open wire implementation for instance is the very first
> implementation.. and it needs to be taken further.
>
> the docs work was a direct conversion of what we had... that was also
> part of the IP clearance.
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
> Yes. Almost exclusively done by the HornetQ team (going by the commit logs and the team page at HornetQ’s website).
>>
That was done this way because we were getting ready for the IP
Clearance and what was needed for the first release.
As part of the IP clearance process we were supposed to get rid of
Cat-X dependencies (the JMS API JAR was LGPL for instance... so we
needed to find a replacement which was completed by John Ament here.
>> We incorporated OpenWire, changed how connection factories are
>> serialized and persisted to be exactly the same as what's done on
>> ActiveMQ5, the server start was recently changed to be exactly as
>> what's done on Apollo, Documentation was changed around a lot to be
>> consistent with Apache brands... etc.. etc.. etc…
>
> All hard work and looks awesome. Impressive effort. What bothers me is the we part. The we isn’t the ActiveMQ community as a whole, it’s the formerly HornetQ community subset. A shocking lack of diversity on the people front, not the code front.
As I said.. that was just the first release... there's a lot more to
be done.. and we have been pretty open about inviting people to join
the effort.
The open wire implementation for instance is the very first
implementation.. and it needs to be taken further.
the docs work was a direct conversion of what we had... that was also
part of the IP clearance.
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Tracy Snell <ts...@gmail.com>.
> On Apr 20, 2015, at 8:54 PM, Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It was pretty clear from the beginning this was going to be a
> sub-project and we would incorporate changes.. there was a new repo
> open, a new JIRA open, new jiras fed... and 205 Pull requests with
> about 400 committs in 4 months…
Yes. Almost exclusively done by the HornetQ team (going by the commit logs and the team page at HornetQ’s website).
>
> We incorporated OpenWire, changed how connection factories are
> serialized and persisted to be exactly the same as what's done on
> ActiveMQ5, the server start was recently changed to be exactly as
> what's done on Apollo, Documentation was changed around a lot to be
> consistent with Apache brands... etc.. etc.. etc…
All hard work and looks awesome. Impressive effort. What bothers me is the we part. The we isn’t the ActiveMQ community as a whole, it’s the formerly HornetQ community subset. A shocking lack of diversity on the people front, not the code front.
I’m still a big fan of things going exactly where you and others want them to. I’m just not happy with the process so far and the distinct teams working on 5 vs Artemis.
The HornetQ folks have done some awesome work.
>
> Nothing different than what agreed was done...
>
> Nothing was done behind meeting rooms I assure you.. in fact we were
> just set to deliver what we agreed as part of the donation, while we
> were clearing up the Cat-X dependencies and renames.
Some wonder because there is direct benefit to RedHat in this (not that that’s evil or even wrong) and everyone seems to pretending there isn’t. Supporting one MQ vs two is a win, planned or not. RedHat is a company I admire with many employees I consider friends, all of whom speak highly of the company (I don’t know of any other company with so many happy employees). So someone can ignore my points and claim I’m just anti RedHat or some other utter bullshit but it’d be just that.
In the meantime I have to go put my sys admin hat on (and it fits poorly) and bang on my Centos (Thanks RH!) test servers.
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@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.
Did you actually read the code or the changes made?
It was pretty clear from the beginning this was going to be a
sub-project and we would incorporate changes.. there was a new repo
open, a new JIRA open, new jiras fed... and 205 Pull requests with
about 400 committs in 4 months...
We incorporated OpenWire, changed how connection factories are
serialized and persisted to be exactly the same as what's done on
ActiveMQ5, the server start was recently changed to be exactly as
what's done on Apollo, Documentation was changed around a lot to be
consistent with Apache brands... etc.. etc.. etc...
Nothing different than what agreed was done...
Nothing was done behind meeting rooms I assure you.. in fact we were
just set to deliver what we agreed as part of the donation, while we
were clearing up the Cat-X dependencies and renames.
It was a mistake was to call it activemq-6.0.0.. as we knew we were
not ready.. it was just the first release..
That has been said a few times already, and you ignore these points.
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Gary Tully <ga...@gmail.com>.
I think it is worth pointing out that the code donation is in the
incubator, the short form of incubation to complete ip clearance[1].
Implicit in that is the intent to collaborate with an existing
community, not to create a new community.
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
On 21 April 2015 at 10:08, Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 21/04/15 04:29, artnaseef wrote:
>>
>> I didn't even catch up on this entire thread, so forgive me if I missed
>> something. It's wearing me out - again.
>
> +1. I understand that those folks on this thread are particularly
> passionate and hence why things have escalated to this point. I get the
> impression that everyone on this thread wants the best for ActiveMQ. This
> will not happen if people start making accusations, falling out and start
> battling. Once this happens the issue at hand stops being about the "good"
> and starts becoming about the "win" (or not losing face). Please, all, put
> differences aside and be objective about the issue in hand.
>>
>>
>> Look, it's last minute. No quick fixes are coming.
>>
>> There are some good things happening now, but they won't fix things today
>> or
>> tomorrow. Given the timing and the threat of board action, it's natural
>> to
>> question sincerity.
>>
>> Let's get the board report finished.
>>
>> Hiram - please add to the board report Hadrian's belief that the best path
>> forward for the new code is to take it to the incubator. Mention that at
>> least one other board member feels that path is likely the best one
>> forward
>> - especially given the problems currently faced by the ActiveMQ community.
>> Just state it as fact - that it's the opinion of individual PMC members.
>
> +1. Please just add that this is the opinion of some PMC and community
> members.
>
> Perhaps what is needed is a clear, concise representation of the argument
> backing up this view. Hadrian and/or Tracy perhaps you can provide a
> summary of your views that can be included in the report. Hiram is not best
> suited to write this on your behalf.
>
> To balance this argument, we also need a clear, concise representation of
> the opinion of those who feel that ActiveMQ Artemis should not go into
> incubator, Hiram perhaps you can provide this?
>
> Laying the two arguments side by side, void of emotion should make the two
> stances clear. The request to have representation in this report is a
> reasonable one, and in my opinion should be addressed.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Special-Board-Report-tp4695140p4695336.html
>> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com>.
On 21/04/15 04:29, artnaseef wrote:
> I didn't even catch up on this entire thread, so forgive me if I missed
> something. It's wearing me out - again.
+1. I understand that those folks on this thread are particularly
passionate and hence why things have escalated to this point. I get the
impression that everyone on this thread wants the best for ActiveMQ.
This will not happen if people start making accusations, falling out and
start battling. Once this happens the issue at hand stops being about
the "good" and starts becoming about the "win" (or not losing face).
Please, all, put differences aside and be objective about the issue in hand.
>
> Look, it's last minute. No quick fixes are coming.
>
> There are some good things happening now, but they won't fix things today or
> tomorrow. Given the timing and the threat of board action, it's natural to
> question sincerity.
>
> Let's get the board report finished.
>
> Hiram - please add to the board report Hadrian's belief that the best path
> forward for the new code is to take it to the incubator. Mention that at
> least one other board member feels that path is likely the best one forward
> - especially given the problems currently faced by the ActiveMQ community.
> Just state it as fact - that it's the opinion of individual PMC members.
+1. Please just add that this is the opinion of some PMC and community
members.
Perhaps what is needed is a clear, concise representation of the
argument backing up this view. Hadrian and/or Tracy perhaps you can
provide a summary of your views that can be included in the report.
Hiram is not best suited to write this on your behalf.
To balance this argument, we also need a clear, concise representation
of the opinion of those who feel that ActiveMQ Artemis should not go
into incubator, Hiram perhaps you can provide this?
Laying the two arguments side by side, void of emotion should make the
two stances clear. The request to have representation in this report is
a reasonable one, and in my opinion should be addressed.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Special-Board-Report-tp4695140p4695336.html
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by artnaseef <ar...@artnaseef.com>.
I didn't even catch up on this entire thread, so forgive me if I missed
something. It's wearing me out - again.
Look, it's last minute. No quick fixes are coming.
There are some good things happening now, but they won't fix things today or
tomorrow. Given the timing and the threat of board action, it's natural to
question sincerity.
Let's get the board report finished.
Hiram - please add to the board report Hadrian's belief that the best path
forward for the new code is to take it to the incubator. Mention that at
least one other board member feels that path is likely the best one forward
- especially given the problems currently faced by the ActiveMQ community.
Just state it as fact - that it's the opinion of individual PMC members.
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/Special-Board-Report-tp4695140p4695336.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
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 <hz...@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 <br...@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 <hi...@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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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
>>>>>>>>>> <hi...@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
>>
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
Hadrian, I asked you sincerely to explain your points and you start off by
insulting me. I've been here the whole time reading these discussions, but
the problem is that your points do not stick to facts and your responses
always devolve into accusations and attacks which cause even more
confusion. The result of which we can see here with your attack of David.
He was simply trying to get some clarity around your actual points by
restating what he thinks you're trying to say. He even prefaced his points
by saying the following:
'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.'
David was only trying to take the time to understand your points and you
reward his efforts by insulting him. This is definitely not the community
spirit that I'd like to be fostering here.
Bruce
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@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 <br...@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 <hi...@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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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
>>>>>>>>>> <hi...@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
>>>
>>
>>
--
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
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
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 <br...@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 <hi...@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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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
>>>>>>>>> <hi...@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
>
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
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 <br...@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 <hi...@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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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
>>>>>>>> <hi...@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
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
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 <hi...@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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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
> >>>>>> <hi...@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
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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
>>>>>> <hi...@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
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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 <hi...@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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
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 <hz...@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 <hz...@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 <hi...@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
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
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 <hz...@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 <hi...@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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
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 <hz...@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 <hi...@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
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
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 <hi...@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
>
>
>
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
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 <hi...@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
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
Agreed, I just updated this. I also added a statement to clarify that
the HornetQ
open source project is now considered a legacy project and the code is no
longer maintained as the open source project HornetQ.
Bruce
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:17 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I'd recommend replacing RH w/ RedHat, just to clarify.
>
> John
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:50 AM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you for compiling this info, Hiram. I have added a small statement
> to
> > the working together to build community around the HornetQ code donation.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
--
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
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I'd recommend replacing RH w/ RedHat, just to clarify.
John
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:50 AM Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thank you for compiling this info, Hiram. I have added a small statement to
> the working together to build community around the HornetQ code donation.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
Re: Special Board Report
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
Thank you for compiling this info, Hiram. I have added a small statement to
the working together to build community around the HornetQ code donation.
Bruce
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@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
>
--
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