[VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
80 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Bruce Snyder
John, as I stated, I did not put any restrictions on the page. None of us
has any special access to the wiki page, we just log in to the wiki and
click the 'Edit' button. Are you not able to see the page? Are able to see
the page but not the 'Edit' button?

Bruce

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:22 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Can you check if "johndament" has edit access?
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:07 PM Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I did not restrict the page. In looking at the page restrictions, there
> are
> > none so anyone with credentials for the wiki should be able to view and
> > edit it.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:56 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:48 PM Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > According to the ASF Voting page (
> > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html):
> > > >
> > > > 'Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule
> > > > unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes
> > than
> > > > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> regardless
> > > of
> > > > the number of votes in each category. '
> > > >
> > > > However, given that there are some binding -1s, I believe it is in
> > > > everyone's best interest to stop this vote and prepare a plan to move
> > > > forward as a group.
> > > >
> > > > In the interest of moving forward as a group, I have created a page
> > > > specifically for the Artemis Roadmap here:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/
> > > ActiveMQ+Artemis+Roadmap
> > > >
> > > > I encourage everyone to contribute to this page and discuss it in a
> > > > separate discussion thread on the dev@activemq list. I will start a
> > > > separate discussion for this topic now.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can you please grant committers write access to this page?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Bruce
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > @Justin,
> > > > >
> > > > > In terms of consensus it depends on what it is with Apache.  I know
> > for
> > > > > releases you just need a majority vote but for code modifications a
> > -1
> > > > by a
> > > > > PMC member is a veto.
> > > > >
> > > > > In this case I'm not entirely sure but I think the -1 votes in this
> > > > thread
> > > > > would be considered a veto unless they are changed.
> > > > >
> > > > > See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > @Jeff:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and
> release
> > > > > > whenever it was ready.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would
> > > drive
> > > > > > people using it.. etc.. etc..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption,
> > and
> > > > > > there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at
> > the
> > > > > > website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't
> help
> > > at
> > > > > > all!!!).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on
> > the
> > > > > > website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion
> before
> > > > > > starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got
> into
> > > > > > here).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these
> > agenda
> > > > > > items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
> > > > > > answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
> > > > > > used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view
> > on
> > > > > > where we will get.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis
> > more
> > > > > > prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > There is a vote that is more and more looking like an
> underlying
> > > > agenda
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by
> > companies.
> > > > > > Sorry,
> > > > > > > just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
> > > > > > > knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.
> That's a
> > > > shame
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because
> > > some
> > > > > > folks
> > > > > > > are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its
> > > > > technical
> > > > > > > because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over
> > > from
> > > > > > AMQ5.
> > > > > > > I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic -
> > > > whatever)
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6
> > > means
> > > > > its
> > > > > > > the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with
> > the
> > > > > old.
> > > > > > > Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on
> > > > numerical
> > > > > > > versions for a majority of software and this one in particular
> -
> > > > that's
> > > > > > > technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is
> > both
> > > PR
> > > > > > *and*
> > > > > > > technical.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis
> > > > ultimately
> > > > > > > becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and
> has
> > > > > > reasonable
> > > > > > > compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like
> some
> > > > basic
> > > > > > > stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are
> running
> > > > AMQ5,
> > > > > > > which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast
> > majority
> > > > of
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > community.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very
> > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more
> in
> > > line
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why
> > is
> > > > that
> > > > > > > viewed as so unreasonable?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about
> > > naming
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an
> > agenda
> > > > and
> > > > > > > there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
> > > > > > hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
> > > > > > artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a
> > > > > numbering
> > > > > > > with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear
> > > people
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?
> There
> > is
> > > > no
> > > > > > > ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to
> > > JBoss
> > > > > AMQ
> > > > > > 7.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing
> to
> > > do
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with
> > > vendors
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of
> > the
> > > > day
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do
> > with
> > > > > this.
> > > > > > > But the cross pollination of employees and committers
> > unfortunately
> > > > > > clouds
> > > > > > > this immensely.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all
> > nay-sayers
> > > > > here
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are
> > > > asking a
> > > > > > > relative simple request: Can we please increase the community
> > > > adoption
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this
> > > > > non-technical
> > > > > > > once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis ==
> > > > ActiveMQ
> > > > > 6.
> > > > > > > IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in
> > > > HornetQ
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > why it was named Artemis to begin with.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed
> upon
> > > > when
> > > > > > > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake
> > and
> > > > eat
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Sent from:
> > > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404
> > > > > .
> > > > > > html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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://bsnyder.org/ <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://bsnyder.org/ <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://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
Clebert, nobody says to not promote it. Just promote it as what it is,
ActiveMQ Artemis.

You hope, and I believe you're well intended, is that the PR trick of
calling it ActiveMQ 6 will drive adoption. But that won't be on its
merit, but piggybacking on the ActiveMQ reputation. This point of view
was repeated over and over again. I am curious if you don't understand
it or you won't accept it.

As we (the community) made this exact mistake in the past, I am
certainly not ok with it. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and
so are others.

Cheers,
Hadrian

On 12/06/2017 03:15 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:

> @Jeff:
>
> All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and future.
>
> We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and release
> whenever it was ready.
>
> We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what would drive
> people using it.. etc.. etc..
>
> Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no adoption, and
> there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look at the
> website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't help at
> all!!!).
>
> If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent on the
> website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion before
> starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got into
> here).
>
> Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these agenda
> items... we would be back into the same square we are today. That
> answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
> used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear view on
> where we will get.
>
>
> So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ Artemis more
> prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> There is a vote that is more and more looking like an underlying agenda as
>> you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by companies.  Sorry,
>> just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back the
>> knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.  That's a shame and
>> I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
>>
>> This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR because some folks
>> are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.  Its technical
>> because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take over from AMQ5.
>> I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic - whatever) is
>> being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new AMQ6 means its
>> the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility with the old.
>> Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on numerical
>> versions for a majority of software and this one in particular - that's
>> technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is both PR *and*
>> technical.
>>
>> My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis ultimately
>> becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and has reasonable
>> compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like some basic
>> stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are running AMQ5,
>> which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast majority of our
>> community.
>>
>> The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is very reasonable.
>> Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more in line so
>> that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.  Why is that
>> viewed as so unreasonable?
>>
>> I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier about naming and
>> vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an agenda and
>> there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
>>
>> https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-what-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
>>
>> Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
>>
>> https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
>>
>> Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has a numbering
>> with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear people in the
>> community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?  There is no
>> ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring to JBoss AMQ 7.
>>
>> So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has nothing to do with
>> vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with vendors and
>> this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end of the day and
>> in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do with this.
>> But the cross pollination of employees and committers unfortunately clouds
>> this immensely.
>>
>> So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all nay-sayers here are
>> ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They are asking a
>> relative simple request: Can we please increase the community adoption and
>> get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this non-technical
>> once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis == ActiveMQ 6.
>> IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing in HornetQ and
>> why it was named Artemis to begin with.
>>
>> Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed upon when
>> bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your cake and eat it
>> too.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by clebertsuconic
Clebert, your goal should not be an ActiveMQ 6. IMHO totally short sighted.

Why not shoot for making Artemis the best messaging system under the
sun. It won't matter how it's called then. This kind of looks like
desperation to get adoption via whatever means, screw the consequences
for others. I am telling you again, we've been here before, we know what
happened. We learned.

Cheers,
Hadrian


On 12/06/2017 04:40 PM, Clebert Suconic wrote:

> I didn’t mean to be negative or emotional.. sorry it’s being a hard day for me…
> all I want to clarify is if we would need 100% consensus in the future
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:34 PM, jgenender <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> clebertsuconic wrote
>>>> Lets make this project work in harmony for everyone so we can work
>>>> towards
>>>> consensus for what is AMQ6 and when.
>>>
>>> Harmony and Unanimous consensus is something pretty rare in humanity.
>>
>> Thats a pretty sad view.  Nobody said unanimous.  Harmony is certainly not
>> that hard.  But where I think the elephant is where those votes are aligned.
>> That should be a much bigger concern.
>>
>>
>> clebertsuconic wrote
>>> If you help promote Artemis, work towards the roadmap.. and
>>> everything.. there's still the question:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1 year, 2 years, 3 years from now... aren't we going to be back to this
>>> square?
>>>
>>>
>>> I just want to know the terms ahead of time.. is this fixable?  I
>>> believe one year from now.. we  will -1s from usually -1s people,  no
>>> matter how complete we are on the Roadmap.
>>
>> Who can answer that?  I think minimally it needs to be easily migrated.  At
>> this stage it certainly cannot... at least not from my experience.  We
>> cannot turn our back on the majority of this community who just so happens
>> to use ActiveMQ 5.
>>
>> Its also kind of sad that you have relinquished to thinking -1s are -1s
>> forever.  I believe I told you point blank I'm all for Artemis being AMQ6...
>> "When its ready".  What is ready?  It was stated many times in this thread.
>> I believe the -1s in this thread all said the same thing.  Get more people
>> using it and have a good compatible migration path so we can be consistent
>> with all of our major version releases.
>>
>> Artemis is getting what it wants.  More prominence and support from the AMQ
>> project and a commitment to migration path.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

John D. Ament-2
In reply to this post by Bruce Snyder
Bruce,

I see the page, but not the edit button.

John

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:27 PM Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]> wrote:

> John, as I stated, I did not put any restrictions on the page. None of us
> has any special access to the wiki page, we just log in to the wiki and
> click the 'Edit' button. Are you not able to see the page? Are able to see
> the page but not the 'Edit' button?
>
> Bruce
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:22 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Can you check if "johndament" has edit access?
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:07 PM Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I did not restrict the page. In looking at the page restrictions, there
> > are
> > > none so anyone with credentials for the wiki should be able to view and
> > > edit it.
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:56 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:48 PM Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > According to the ASF Voting page (
> > > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html):
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority
> rule
> > > > > unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable
> votes
> > > than
> > > > > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed --
> > regardless
> > > > of
> > > > > the number of votes in each category. '
> > > > >
> > > > > However, given that there are some binding -1s, I believe it is in
> > > > > everyone's best interest to stop this vote and prepare a plan to
> move
> > > > > forward as a group.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the interest of moving forward as a group, I have created a page
> > > > > specifically for the Artemis Roadmap here:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ACTIVEMQ/
> > > > ActiveMQ+Artemis+Roadmap
> > > > >
> > > > > I encourage everyone to contribute to this page and discuss it in a
> > > > > separate discussion thread on the dev@activemq list. I will start
> a
> > > > > separate discussion for this topic now.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you please grant committers write access to this page?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bruce
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Shannon <
> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > @Justin,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In terms of consensus it depends on what it is with Apache.  I
> know
> > > for
> > > > > > releases you just need a majority vote but for code
> modifications a
> > > -1
> > > > > by a
> > > > > > PMC member is a veto.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In this case I'm not entirely sure but I think the -1 votes in
> this
> > > > > thread
> > > > > > would be considered a veto unless they are changed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > @Jeff:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All this was about the previous discussion on Roadmap and
> future.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We would call it ActivedMQ6 now... start working on it and
> > release
> > > > > > > whenever it was ready.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We would then make it more prominent in the website.. what
> would
> > > > drive
> > > > > > > people using it.. etc.. etc..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Right now you won't promote Artemis because there's no
> adoption,
> > > and
> > > > > > > there's no adoption because there's no promotion of it.. (look
> at
> > > the
> > > > > > > website.. it doesn't really help... well.. the website doesn't
> > help
> > > > at
> > > > > > > all!!!).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If there was a clear roadmap, and Artemis being more prominent
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > > website.. problem solved... (that's why we had a discussion
> > before
> > > > > > > starting this voting.. I thought this was clear before we got
> > into
> > > > > > > here).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Right now.. I feel that if we spent 3 years, working on these
> > > agenda
> > > > > > > items... we would be back into the same square we are today.
> That
> > > > > > > answers why I pushed this with "rush" (just to use the term you
> > > > > > > used).. I don't want to work another 3 years without a clear
> view
> > > on
> > > > > > > where we will get.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, I reach back to everybody here, how to make ActiveMQ
> Artemis
> > > more
> > > > > > > prominent and have a clear path to where we want to get?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:19 PM, jgenender <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > There is a vote that is more and more looking like an
> > underlying
> > > > > agenda
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > you can start to see a dividing line separated mostly by
> > > companies.
> > > > > > > Sorry,
> > > > > > > > just calling a spade a spade.  Its definitely bringing back
> the
> > > > > > > > knock-down-drag-out threads from a couple of years ago.
> > That's a
> > > > > shame
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > I really hope that is not the direction this is going.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is a PR vote that also becomes technical.  It's PR
> because
> > > > some
> > > > > > > folks
> > > > > > > > are saying that Artemis AKA HornetQ must become AMQ6 now.
> Its
> > > > > > technical
> > > > > > > > because making it AMQ6 makes assumptions that it will take
> over
> > > > from
> > > > > > > AMQ5.
> > > > > > > > I realize that people say "Nobody is saying AMQ 5 (classic -
> > > > > whatever)
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > being deprecated", but guess what?  Making Artemis the new
> AMQ6
> > > > means
> > > > > > its
> > > > > > > > the next in line and should have a degree of compatibility
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > old.
> > > > > > > > Remember AMQ3->4->5.  Its an assumption that has been made on
> > > > > numerical
> > > > > > > > versions for a majority of software and this one in
> particular
> > -
> > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > technical. It does make illusions of deprecation.  So this is
> > > both
> > > > PR
> > > > > > > *and*
> > > > > > > > technical.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My concerns here are that some people are fine with Artemis
> > > > > ultimately
> > > > > > > > becoming AMQ6 given that Artemis gains a solid user base and
> > has
> > > > > > > reasonable
> > > > > > > > compatibility with AMQ5.  NPEs utilizing Openwire seems like
> > some
> > > > > basic
> > > > > > > > stuff to fix for minimal compatibility with those who are
> > running
> > > > > AMQ5,
> > > > > > > > which fortunately or unfortunately, happens to be the vast
> > > majority
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > community.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The requests by the -1s seem to ask a simple thing that is
> very
> > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > Lets get that adoption rate up and get the compatibility more
> > in
> > > > line
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > that people DO have a path to upgrade to the next version.
> Why
> > > is
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > viewed as so unreasonable?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I also want to make a statement that Arthur made earlier
> about
> > > > naming
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > vendors and versions.  This is a problem because there is an
> > > agenda
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > there is cross marketing going on.  Look at this blog:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://blog.akquinet.de/2017/02/22/activemq-confusion-and-w
> > > > > > > hat-comes-with-your-jboss-eap-wildfly/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Even looking at Red Hat's very own GA repo:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://maven.repository.redhat.com/ga/org/apache/activemq/
> > > > > > > artemis-server/2.0.0.amq-700013-redhat-1/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is it 2 or is it 7?  Is it JBoss or ActiveMQ?  This repo has
> a
> > > > > > numbering
> > > > > > > > with our name on it, but is it even our code?  So when I hear
> > > > people
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > community ask "Should we go to ActiveMQ 7", I reply "Huh?
> > There
> > > is
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > ActiveMQ 7".  After a while it turns out they are referring
> to
> > > > JBoss
> > > > > > AMQ
> > > > > > > 7.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So sure, we can claim all day that Apache ActiveMQ has
> nothing
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > vendors, but lets be honest.  This has everything to do with
> > > > vendors
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > this vote and the lines it is drawing proves it.  At the end
> of
> > > the
> > > > > day
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > in theory, you are right... vendors SHOULD have nothing to do
> > > with
> > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > But the cross pollination of employees and committers
> > > unfortunately
> > > > > > > clouds
> > > > > > > > this immensely.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So I ask this.  It seems very reasonable to say that all
> > > nay-sayers
> > > > > > here
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > ok with with Artemis eventually becoming ActiveMQ 6.  They
> are
> > > > > asking a
> > > > > > > > relative simple request: Can we please increase the community
> > > > > adoption
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > get it more compatible before renaming it?  That makes this
> > > > > > non-technical
> > > > > > > > once that's complete and all parties are fine with Artemis ==
> > > > > ActiveMQ
> > > > > > 6.
> > > > > > > > IIRC, this was exactly what we all agreed upon when bringing
> in
> > > > > HornetQ
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > why it was named Artemis to begin with.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why the rush? Fix the reasonable concerns, do what we agreed
> > upon
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > bringing HornetQ into our community, and you can have your
> cake
> > > and
> > > > > eat
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > too.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Sent from:
> > > > > http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > > html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Clebert Suconic
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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://bsnyder.org/ <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://bsnyder.org/ <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://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by Matt Pavlovich-2
Some people are capable of working towards a goal without a vote.

Back in the day hackers would get together get some beers and with a
"wouldn't it be f* awesome if..." in mind would put something together
quickly, talk with unfakeable passion about the stuff and help other
geeks be successful with it.

Now it's about PR and visions.

Oh well...
Hadrian


On 12/06/2017 05:53 PM, Matt Pavlovich wrote:

> I agree. I don't work for Red Hat either, but we do a ton of ActiveMQ
> work and have products that support ActiveMQ. Artemis looks to be the
> future and working to align the community to that end is a good thing imo.
>
>   +1 vote for the 'let's work to make it ActiveMQ 6'
>
>
> On 12/6/17 3:45 PM, Michael André Pearce wrote:
>> I think the votes are aligned with Artemis.
>>
>> I do not work for RedHat. To have a broad brush statement like that
>> everyone who voted +1 must work for the same company, please don’t
>> tarnish my vote with the same brush.
>>
>> I work for a company that uses ActiveMQ as one of its message brokers
>> and see it’s future in Artemis.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 21:34, jgenender <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> clebertsuconic wrote
>>>>> Lets make this project work in harmony for everyone so we can work
>>>>> towards
>>>>> consensus for what is AMQ6 and when.
>>>> Harmony and Unanimous consensus is something pretty rare in humanity.
>>> Thats a pretty sad view.  Nobody said unanimous.  Harmony is
>>> certainly not
>>> that hard.  But where I think the elephant is where those votes are
>>> aligned.
>>> That should be a much bigger concern.
>>>
>>>
>>> clebertsuconic wrote
>>>> If you help promote Artemis, work towards the roadmap.. and
>>>> everything.. there's still the question:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1 year, 2 years, 3 years from now... aren't we going to be back to this
>>>> square?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just want to know the terms ahead of time.. is this fixable?  I
>>>> believe one year from now.. we  will -1s from usually -1s people,  no
>>>> matter how complete we are on the Roadmap.
>>> Who can answer that?  I think minimally it needs to be easily
>>> migrated.  At
>>> this stage it certainly cannot... at least not from my experience.  We
>>> cannot turn our back on the majority of this community who just so
>>> happens
>>> to use ActiveMQ 5.
>>>
>>> Its also kind of sad that you have relinquished to thinking -1s are -1s
>>> forever.  I believe I told you point blank I'm all for Artemis being
>>> AMQ6...
>>> "When its ready".  What is ready?  It was stated many times in this
>>> thread.
>>> I believe the -1s in this thread all said the same thing.  Get more
>>> people
>>> using it and have a good compatible migration path so we can be
>>> consistent
>>> with all of our major version releases.
>>>
>>> Artemis is getting what it wants.  More prominence and support from
>>> the AMQ
>>> project and a commitment to migration path.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from:
>>> http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by jbertram
That's why new project usually start in the incubator, whey they prove
that they can govern, create a community and the like.

HornetQ preferred to get inside ActiveMQ just because of the strong RH
presence in the PMC. Last time this went all the way to the board (one
board member called if a "switch-a-roo" iirc).

If you want we can talk about the story of another ActiveMQ sub-project
called Camel. Or another project that started as a sub-project in a
community, then moved a sub-project in Felix, and now it's a TLP.

How about a vote to make Artemis a TLP, not ActiveMQ 6. There's already
a Qpid, a RocketMQ. Would that be satisfactory? I would +1 that.

Cheers,
Hadrian

On 12/06/2017 03:13 PM, Justin Bertram wrote:

>> What changed to start it all over again?
>
> The answer to your question is not a secret.  I kicked off a discussion on
> the user list about clarifying the ActiveMQ road-map based on interactions
> with confused users.  This vote grew out of that discussion.
>
>> This is not a vote for a controversial feature people can't agree on, nor
> on accepting an external contribution, nor a release vote. What is it?
>
> In my view this discussion is about clarifying the road-map for ActiveMQ.
> I would encourage you to take a look at the original email I sent which
> kicked off the discussion to get more clarity.  It seems you've missed a
> key part of the discussion so far.
>
>> Some see Artemis as the future of ActiveMQ. Other gray beards see it as a
> project that needs to get more adoption an prove itself before it's clear
> that it can be the evolution of the current 5.x version...
>
> The "adoption" argument seems a bit circular to me.  I don't see how a
> project can be run or at the very least a road-map defined based on future
> adoption.  It seems to me that you're saying we have to wait for adoption
> to clarify the ActiveMQ road-map, but in my opinion projects without a
> clear road-map aren't likely to grow adoption significantly.
>
> In another email you said we need to have this "clarified [sic] internally,
> not externally."  However, isn't relying on adoption essentially
> outsourcing the decision to external entities?  In my opinion, that's more
> akin to just seeing where the wind is blowing rather than really building
> community.
>
>> No consensus yet.
>
> Consensus as I understand it is just a majority of people who believe the
> same way.  According to this vote so far there are 13 (including me) who
> are in favor of Artemis becoming ActiveMQ 6 and 4 who are opposed.  That's
> 76% to 24% respectively.  Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems like consensus to
> me.
>
>
> Justin
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Gary,
>>
>> That is precisely what folks vote -1 against. I hope you are not implying
>> that the -1s should not be counted because you believe the -1s where for a
>> different reason.
>>
>> Surely you must remember the same issue being raised and a vote called
>> some 2 years ago if my memory serves me well (I can look it up if
>> necessary). Exactly same vote, exactly same statement of intent. You know
>> how that went. What changed to start it all over again?
>>
>> Can we agree that this vote is a PR/marketing play, not technology? This
>> is not a vote for a controversial feature people can't agree on, nor on
>> accepting an external contribution, nor a release vote. What is it?
>>
>> Some see Artemis as the future of ActiveMQ. Other gray beards see it as a
>> project that needs to get more adoption an prove itself before it's clear
>> that it can be the evolution of the current 5.x version that serves the
>> market very well (proven yet again by AWS). No consensus yet.
>>
>> Hadrian
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/06/2017 10:45 AM, Gary Tully wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2017 at 14:34 Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> My understanding of this vote is that it is a decision to officially state
>>>> the intent of the ActiveMQ project to eventually release Artemis as
>>>> ActiveMQ 6.x and get moving in that direction to identify and address
>>>> concerns.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This was also my understanding and what I voted for.
>>> Maybe the intent of the vote needs to be clarified.
>>>
>>> is this what folks voted against?
>>>
>>> gary.
>>>
>>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

MichaelAndrePearce
In reply to this post by Bruce Snyder
On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an overhaul and design inline with the new logo.

Mike

Sent from my iPhone

> On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take on
> this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more prominent
> on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
> separate discussion around this.
>
> More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
>>
>>
>>
>> I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this
>> thread:
>>
>> - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
>> - Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
>> forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
>>   ... any volunteers here?
>>   ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the confluent
>> wiki.
>> - Have more discussions on the dev list
>>
>
>
>
> --
> perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
>
> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Martyn Taylor
To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the accusations made in this
thread.

After the last round of accusations of Red Hat are pushing through their
own agenda, I'm sad to see it happening again.  I continue to use my Red
Hat email address in public discussions, in my PR requests and review.
I've nothing to hide nor am I ashamed to be employed by a company like Red
Hat.  My legions lie with ActiveMQ and making the project and community a
better place.  I've put so much personal and emotional effort into this
project.  To have my votes and opinions abrogated just because I work for a
certain company I find shocking and not at all democratic.

Actually, looking back through this vote thread to the people who voted +1,
who were accused of pushing an alternate agenda are actually the same
people who I see involved in the community on a day to day basis.  The same
people fixing bugs, answering user questions and doing releases.  And
they're not all employed by the same company.

If people want to vote -1 to this, fair enough you're entitled to your vote
and I have no issue.  But, all this talk about companies pushing an agenda,
seems to me to be a bit of a guise to detract away from the actual subject
in hand.  TBH, I am sick of hearing about it.

I respect the result of the vote.

I am -1 on the idea of making Artemis TLP.
I am +1  on Bruce's suggestion on creating a Roadmap.  I think this is
really what we need right now.


On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Michael André Pearce <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an overhaul
> and design inline with the new logo.
>
> Mike
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take on
> > this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more
> prominent
> > on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
> > separate discussion around this.
> >
> > More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this
> >> thread:
> >>
> >> - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
> >> - Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
> >> forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
> >>   ... any volunteers here?
> >>   ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the confluent
> >> wiki.
> >> - Have more discussions on the dev list
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > perl -e 'print
> > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
> >
> > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

christopher.l.shannon
As someone who has no affiliation with Red Hat (I don't work for them and I
am not a customer) I do get pretty tired of all the accusations as well and
getting lumped into having an agenda.

I am a heavy 5.x user and I have contributed to the project quite a bit the
past couple of years.  My motivation for wanting Artemis to succeed is
purely a technical one.  I have evaluated both brokers and Artemis is not
perfect but it has a good architecture and in my opinion is a good
foundation for building the best broker possible.  Others can disagree and
that is fine but that is my reasoning.

Martyn brings up a point that I have avoided bringing up until now but I
will bring it up because I'm pretty tired of all of the accusations about
company agendas.  I think it's pretty obvious from anyone paying attention
to see that the people who are voting -1 are the same people who are not
involved in the community at all.  Jeff and Hadrian and company...when's
the last time you guys actually contributed anything to the project?
Answered a user question?  Fixed a bug?  Joined in on a technical
discussion? Did a release? Fixed a CVE?  The only time you guys show up is
on threads like this.

To all the people who voted -1 because you don't think that Artemis is
ready to become ActiveMQ 6 because of lack of migration and features...how
about you guys actually help contribute and make it a reality instead of
making accusations?


On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Martyn Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:

> To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the accusations made in this
> thread.
>
> After the last round of accusations of Red Hat are pushing through their
> own agenda, I'm sad to see it happening again.  I continue to use my Red
> Hat email address in public discussions, in my PR requests and review.
> I've nothing to hide nor am I ashamed to be employed by a company like Red
> Hat.  My legions lie with ActiveMQ and making the project and community a
> better place.  I've put so much personal and emotional effort into this
> project.  To have my votes and opinions abrogated just because I work for a
> certain company I find shocking and not at all democratic.
>
> Actually, looking back through this vote thread to the people who voted +1,
> who were accused of pushing an alternate agenda are actually the same
> people who I see involved in the community on a day to day basis.  The same
> people fixing bugs, answering user questions and doing releases.  And
> they're not all employed by the same company.
>
> If people want to vote -1 to this, fair enough you're entitled to your vote
> and I have no issue.  But, all this talk about companies pushing an agenda,
> seems to me to be a bit of a guise to detract away from the actual subject
> in hand.  TBH, I am sick of hearing about it.
>
> I respect the result of the vote.
>
> I am -1 on the idea of making Artemis TLP.
> I am +1  on Bruce's suggestion on creating a Roadmap.  I think this is
> really what we need right now.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Michael André Pearce <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an overhaul
> > and design inline with the new logo.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take
> on
> > > this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more
> > prominent
> > > on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
> > > separate discussion around this.
> > >
> > > More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this
> > >> thread:
> > >>
> > >> - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
> > >> - Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
> > >> forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
> > >>   ... any volunteers here?
> > >>   ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the
> confluent
> > >> wiki.
> > >> - Have more discussions on the dev list
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > perl -e 'print
> > > unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
> > >
> > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> > > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

jgenender
Oh let’s not go there Chris :-). You won’t like the answers.

Who are you affiliated with, Chris?


christopher.l.shannon wrote

> As someone who has no affiliation with Red Hat (I don't work for them and
> I
> am not a customer) I do get pretty tired of all the accusations as well
> and
> getting lumped into having an agenda.
>
> I am a heavy 5.x user and I have contributed to the project quite a bit
> the
> past couple of years.  My motivation for wanting Artemis to succeed is
> purely a technical one.  I have evaluated both brokers and Artemis is not
> perfect but it has a good architecture and in my opinion is a good
> foundation for building the best broker possible.  Others can disagree and
> that is fine but that is my reasoning.
>
> Martyn brings up a point that I have avoided bringing up until now but I
> will bring it up because I'm pretty tired of all of the accusations about
> company agendas.  I think it's pretty obvious from anyone paying attention
> to see that the people who are voting -1 are the same people who are not
> involved in the community at all.  Jeff and Hadrian and company...when's
> the last time you guys actually contributed anything to the project?
> Answered a user question?  Fixed a bug?  Joined in on a technical
> discussion? Did a release? Fixed a CVE?  The only time you guys show up is
> on threads like this.
>
> To all the people who voted -1 because you don't think that Artemis is
> ready to become ActiveMQ 6 because of lack of migration and features...how
> about you guys actually help contribute and make it a reality instead of
> making accusations?
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Martyn Taylor &lt;

> mtaylor@

> &gt; wrote:
>
>> To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the accusations made in this
>> thread.
>>
>> After the last round of accusations of Red Hat are pushing through their
>> own agenda, I'm sad to see it happening again.  I continue to use my Red
>> Hat email address in public discussions, in my PR requests and review.
>> I've nothing to hide nor am I ashamed to be employed by a company like
>> Red
>> Hat.  My legions lie with ActiveMQ and making the project and community a
>> better place.  I've put so much personal and emotional effort into this
>> project.  To have my votes and opinions abrogated just because I work for
>> a
>> certain company I find shocking and not at all democratic.
>>
>> Actually, looking back through this vote thread to the people who voted
>> +1,
>> who were accused of pushing an alternate agenda are actually the same
>> people who I see involved in the community on a day to day basis.  The
>> same
>> people fixing bugs, answering user questions and doing releases.  And
>> they're not all employed by the same company.
>>
>> If people want to vote -1 to this, fair enough you're entitled to your
>> vote
>> and I have no issue.  But, all this talk about companies pushing an
>> agenda,
>> seems to me to be a bit of a guise to detract away from the actual
>> subject
>> in hand.  TBH, I am sick of hearing about it.
>>
>> I respect the result of the vote.
>>
>> I am -1 on the idea of making Artemis TLP.
>> I am +1  on Bruce's suggestion on creating a Roadmap.  I think this is
>> really what we need right now.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Michael André Pearce <
>>

> michael.andre.pearce@

>> wrote:
>>
>> > On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an
>> overhaul
>> > and design inline with the new logo.
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPhone
>> >
>> > > On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder &lt;

> bruce.snyder@

> &gt; wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take
>> on
>> > > this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more
>> > prominent
>> > > on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
>> > > separate discussion around this.
>> > >
>> > > More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
>> > >
>> > > Bruce
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>> >

> clebert.suconic@

>>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this
>> > >> thread:
>> > >>
>> > >> - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
>> > >> - Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
>> > >> forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
>> > >>   ... any volunteers here?
>> > >>   ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the
>> confluent
>> > >> wiki.
>> > >> - Have more discussions on the dev list
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > perl -e 'print
>> > >
>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E&lt;D\!G;6%I;\&quot;YC;VT*&quot;
> &gt; );'
>> > >
>> > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
>> > > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ &lt;http://bruceblog.org/&gt;
>> > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>> >
>>





--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

christopher.l.shannon
Why?  You going to verify my affiliation or something?  I don't have
anything to prove to you.  As Tim said in another thread you don't
intimidate me either.

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:38 AM, jgenender <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Oh let’s not go there Chris :-). You won’t like the answers.
>
> Who are you affiliated with, Chris?
>
>
> christopher.l.shannon wrote
> > As someone who has no affiliation with Red Hat (I don't work for them and
> > I
> > am not a customer) I do get pretty tired of all the accusations as well
> > and
> > getting lumped into having an agenda.
> >
> > I am a heavy 5.x user and I have contributed to the project quite a bit
> > the
> > past couple of years.  My motivation for wanting Artemis to succeed is
> > purely a technical one.  I have evaluated both brokers and Artemis is not
> > perfect but it has a good architecture and in my opinion is a good
> > foundation for building the best broker possible.  Others can disagree
> and
> > that is fine but that is my reasoning.
> >
> > Martyn brings up a point that I have avoided bringing up until now but I
> > will bring it up because I'm pretty tired of all of the accusations about
> > company agendas.  I think it's pretty obvious from anyone paying
> attention
> > to see that the people who are voting -1 are the same people who are not
> > involved in the community at all.  Jeff and Hadrian and company...when's
> > the last time you guys actually contributed anything to the project?
> > Answered a user question?  Fixed a bug?  Joined in on a technical
> > discussion? Did a release? Fixed a CVE?  The only time you guys show up
> is
> > on threads like this.
> >
> > To all the people who voted -1 because you don't think that Artemis is
> > ready to become ActiveMQ 6 because of lack of migration and
> features...how
> > about you guys actually help contribute and make it a reality instead of
> > making accusations?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Martyn Taylor &lt;
>
> > mtaylor@
>
> > &gt; wrote:
> >
> >> To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the accusations made in this
> >> thread.
> >>
> >> After the last round of accusations of Red Hat are pushing through their
> >> own agenda, I'm sad to see it happening again.  I continue to use my Red
> >> Hat email address in public discussions, in my PR requests and review.
> >> I've nothing to hide nor am I ashamed to be employed by a company like
> >> Red
> >> Hat.  My legions lie with ActiveMQ and making the project and community
> a
> >> better place.  I've put so much personal and emotional effort into this
> >> project.  To have my votes and opinions abrogated just because I work
> for
> >> a
> >> certain company I find shocking and not at all democratic.
> >>
> >> Actually, looking back through this vote thread to the people who voted
> >> +1,
> >> who were accused of pushing an alternate agenda are actually the same
> >> people who I see involved in the community on a day to day basis.  The
> >> same
> >> people fixing bugs, answering user questions and doing releases.  And
> >> they're not all employed by the same company.
> >>
> >> If people want to vote -1 to this, fair enough you're entitled to your
> >> vote
> >> and I have no issue.  But, all this talk about companies pushing an
> >> agenda,
> >> seems to me to be a bit of a guise to detract away from the actual
> >> subject
> >> in hand.  TBH, I am sick of hearing about it.
> >>
> >> I respect the result of the vote.
> >>
> >> I am -1 on the idea of making Artemis TLP.
> >> I am +1  on Bruce's suggestion on creating a Roadmap.  I think this is
> >> really what we need right now.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Michael André Pearce <
> >>
>
> > michael.andre.pearce@
>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an
> >> overhaul
> >> > and design inline with the new logo.
> >> >
> >> > Mike
> >> >
> >> > Sent from my iPhone
> >> >
> >> > > On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder &lt;
>
> > bruce.snyder@
>
> > &gt; wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to
> take
> >> on
> >> > > this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more
> >> > prominent
> >> > > on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
> >> > > separate discussion around this.
> >> > >
> >> > > More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
> >> > >
> >> > > Bruce
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> >> >
>
> > clebert.suconic@
>
> >>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from
> this
> >> > >> thread:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
> >> > >> - Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
> >> > >> forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
> >> > >>   ... any volunteers here?
> >> > >>   ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the
> >> confluent
> >> > >> wiki.
> >> > >> - Have more discussions on the dev list
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > perl -e 'print
> >> > >
> >> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E&lt;D\!G;6%
> I;\&quot;YC;VT*&quot;
> > &gt; );'
> >> > >
> >> > > ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> >> > > Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ &lt;http://bruceblog.org/&gt;
> >> > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> >> >
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-
> f2368404.html
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by Martyn Taylor
Martyn, you continue to misrepresent things.

When we say RH on this thread it's pretty clear what it means. It was
said before, we prefer to use this term to refer to a group that does
have an agenda. There are a few people who refuse to have conversations
that ignore the elephant in the room.

So, RH. I have nothing but respect for RedHat Software, Inc. I have
friends over there, I know its culture, I was invited to some of its
events, I *recommend* some of its products. Great company, friendly to
open source, sponsor of the ASF.

The RH clique in this thread refers to a group of people who, in my
experience, are pushing an agenda. You claim that Artemis has fantastic
technical merits. Fine. In the open source world, pay attention, value
is given by adoption. Not by marketing materials, not by what managers
say, *adoption*! ActiveMQ proved that, Camel did, Karaf did, CXF did.
Heck, HTTPD did, Hadoop+Spark big data ecosystem, Maven, they all did,
by getting adoption.

HornetQ/Artemis has its chance, it's on equal footing. All this
conversation points to a belief of the said clique that lives in an echo
chamber that the *only* way to get adoption for Artemis is to steal the
ActiveMQ name, buy replacing it. The only tool said clique has (and had)
is overwhelming veto power in the PMC (Bruce mentioned it yesterday that
technically the vote could pass, but he knows very well what would
happen next). I asked you, and the -1s got reversed in an amusing way,
if you want to grow Artemis inside or outside the ActiveMQ community. So
you don't want to go TLP (I expected that) because like I was told in
the past what you want is the ActiveMQ brand. And the more sad reason
for that (I know outraged replies will follow), is that the issue is you
promising something to your managers and thy bought into your ideas the
hinge on stealing (basically) ActiveMQ. It's not RedHat Software, Inc's
fault, it's all on you. And now you're in a bind. Even scarier is that
the market, see AWS seems, to validate the value of ActiveMQ (the real
one, 5.x).

So, I dare you to prove me wrong, and prove the Artemis value by
increasing adoption. Bonus points for doing it without abusing the
ActiveMQ brand. Or you can try abusing of your voting power. But you'd
gain more respect from building technology of undeniable value, like
many of the ASF projects.

Hadrian



On 12/07/2017 06:26 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:

> To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the accusations made in this
> thread.
>
> After the last round of accusations of Red Hat are pushing through their
> own agenda, I'm sad to see it happening again.  I continue to use my Red
> Hat email address in public discussions, in my PR requests and review.
> I've nothing to hide nor am I ashamed to be employed by a company like Red
> Hat.  My legions lie with ActiveMQ and making the project and community a
> better place.  I've put so much personal and emotional effort into this
> project.  To have my votes and opinions abrogated just because I work for a
> certain company I find shocking and not at all democratic.
>
> Actually, looking back through this vote thread to the people who voted +1,
> who were accused of pushing an alternate agenda are actually the same
> people who I see involved in the community on a day to day basis.  The same
> people fixing bugs, answering user questions and doing releases.  And
> they're not all employed by the same company.
>
> If people want to vote -1 to this, fair enough you're entitled to your vote
> and I have no issue.  But, all this talk about companies pushing an agenda,
> seems to me to be a bit of a guise to detract away from the actual subject
> in hand.  TBH, I am sick of hearing about it.
>
> I respect the result of the vote.
>
> I am -1 on the idea of making Artemis TLP.
> I am +1  on Bruce's suggestion on creating a Roadmap.  I think this is
> really what we need right now.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Michael André Pearce <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an overhaul
>> and design inline with the new logo.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take on
>>> this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more
>> prominent
>>> on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
>>> separate discussion around this.
>>>
>>> More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>> [hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this
>>>> thread:
>>>>
>>>> - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
>>>> - Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
>>>> forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
>>>>    ... any volunteers here?
>>>>    ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the confluent
>>>> wiki.
>>>> - Have more discussions on the dev list
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> perl -e 'print
>>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" );'
>>>
>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
>>> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Martyn Taylor
You continue to make more accusations, justifying yourself by accusing me
of being disingenuous.  These statements are just plain ignorant.  They
don't warrant a sensible response.

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

> Martyn, you continue to misrepresent things.


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

There are a few people who refuse to have conversations that ignore the

> elephant in the room.
>
> So, RH. I have nothing but respect for RedHat Software, Inc. I have
> friends over there, I know its culture, I was invited to some of its
> events, I *recommend* some of its products. Great company, friendly to open
> source, sponsor of the ASF.
>
> The RH clique in this thread refers to a group of people who, in my
> experience, are pushing an agenda. You claim that Artemis has fantastic
> technical merits. Fine. In the open source world, pay attention, value is
> given by adoption. Not by marketing materials, not by what managers say,
> *adoption*! ActiveMQ proved that, Camel did, Karaf did, CXF did. Heck,
> HTTPD did, Hadoop+Spark big data ecosystem, Maven, they all did, by getting
> adoption.
>
> HornetQ/Artemis has its chance, it's on equal footing. All this
> conversation points to a belief of the said clique that lives in an echo
> chamber that the *only* way to get adoption for Artemis is to steal the
> ActiveMQ name, buy replacing it. The only tool said clique has (and had) is
> overwhelming veto power in the PMC (Bruce mentioned it yesterday that
> technically the vote could pass, but he knows very well what would happen
> next). I asked you, and the -1s got reversed in an amusing way, if you want
> to grow Artemis inside or outside the ActiveMQ community. So you don't want
> to go TLP (I expected that) because like I was told in the past what you
> want is the ActiveMQ brand. And the more sad reason for that (I know
> outraged replies will follow), is that the issue is you promising something
> to your managers and thy bought into your ideas the hinge on stealing
> (basically) ActiveMQ. It's not RedHat Software, Inc's fault, it's all on
> you. And now you're in a bind. Even scarier is that the market, see AWS
> seems, to validate the value of ActiveMQ (the real one, 5.x).
>
> So, I dare you to prove me wrong, and prove the Artemis value by
> increasing adoption. Bonus points for doing it without abusing the ActiveMQ
> brand. Or you can try abusing of your voting power. But you'd gain more
> respect from building technology of undeniable value, like many of the ASF
> projects.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
>
>
> On 12/07/2017 06:26 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>
>> To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the accusations made in this
>> thread.
>>
>> After the last round of accusations of Red Hat are pushing through their
>> own agenda, I'm sad to see it happening again.  I continue to use my Red
>> Hat email address in public discussions, in my PR requests and review.
>> I've nothing to hide nor am I ashamed to be employed by a company like Red
>> Hat.  My legions lie with ActiveMQ and making the project and community a
>> better place.  I've put so much personal and emotional effort into this
>> project.  To have my votes and opinions abrogated just because I work for
>> a
>> certain company I find shocking and not at all democratic.
>>
>> Actually, looking back through this vote thread to the people who voted
>> +1,
>> who were accused of pushing an alternate agenda are actually the same
>> people who I see involved in the community on a day to day basis.  The
>> same
>> people fixing bugs, answering user questions and doing releases.  And
>> they're not all employed by the same company.
>>
>> If people want to vote -1 to this, fair enough you're entitled to your
>> vote
>> and I have no issue.  But, all this talk about companies pushing an
>> agenda,
>> seems to me to be a bit of a guise to detract away from the actual subject
>> in hand.  TBH, I am sick of hearing about it.
>>
>> I respect the result of the vote.
>>
>> I am -1 on the idea of making Artemis TLP.
>> I am +1  on Bruce's suggestion on creating a Roadmap.  I think this is
>> really what we need right now.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Michael André Pearce <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an overhaul
>>> and design inline with the new logo.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take on
>>>> this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more
>>>>
>>> prominent
>>>
>>>> on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
>>>> separate discussion around this.
>>>>
>>>> More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
>>>>
>>>> Bruce
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>>>>
>>> [hidden email]>
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this
>>>>> thread:
>>>>>
>>>>> - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
>>>>> - Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
>>>>> forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
>>>>>    ... any volunteers here?
>>>>>    ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the
>>>>> confluent
>>>>> wiki.
>>>>> - Have more discussions on the dev list
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> perl -e 'print
>>>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
>>>> );'
>>>>
>>>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
>>>> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
>>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

ceposta
In reply to this post by Hadrian Zbarcea
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:12 AM Hadrian Zbarcea <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Martyn, you continue to misrepresent things.
>
> When we say RH on this thread it's pretty clear what it means. It was
> said before, we prefer to use this term to refer to a group that does
> have an agenda. There are a few people who refuse to have conversations
> that ignore the elephant in the room.
>
> So, RH. I have nothing but respect for RedHat Software, Inc. I have
> friends over there, I know its culture, I was invited to some of its
> events, I *recommend* some of its products. Great company, friendly to
> open source, sponsor of the ASF.
>
> The RH clique in this thread refers to a group of people who, in my
> experience, are pushing an agenda.


Who’s that?


You claim that Artemis has fantastic

> technical merits. Fine. In the open source world, pay attention, value
> is given by adoption. Not by marketing materials, not by what managers
> say, *adoption*! ActiveMQ proved that, Camel did, Karaf did, CXF did.
> Heck, HTTPD did, Hadoop+Spark big data ecosystem, Maven, they all did,
> by getting adoption.
>
> HornetQ/Artemis has its chance, it's on equal footing. All this
> conversation points to a belief of the said clique that lives in an echo
> chamber that the *only* way to get adoption for Artemis is to steal the
> ActiveMQ name, buy replacing it. The only tool said clique has (and had)
> is overwhelming veto power in the PMC (Bruce mentioned it yesterday that
> technically the vote could pass, but he knows very well what would
> happen next). I asked you, and the -1s got reversed in an amusing way,
> if you want to grow Artemis inside or outside the ActiveMQ community. So
> you don't want to go TLP (I expected that) because like I was told in
> the past what you want is the ActiveMQ brand. And the more sad reason
> for that (I know outraged replies will follow), is that the issue is you
> promising something to your managers and thy bought into your ideas the
> hinge on stealing (basically) ActiveMQ. It's not RedHat Software, Inc's
> fault, it's all on you. And now you're in a bind. Even scarier is that
> the market, see AWS seems, to validate the value of ActiveMQ (the real
> one, 5.x).
>
> So, I dare you to prove me wrong, and prove the Artemis value by
> increasing adoption. Bonus points for doing it without abusing the
> ActiveMQ brand. Or you can try abusing of your voting power. But you'd
> gain more respect from building technology of undeniable value, like
> many of the ASF projects.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
>
> On 12/07/2017 06:26 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
> > To be quite frank, I'm offended by some of the accusations made in this
> > thread.
> >
> > After the last round of accusations of Red Hat are pushing through their
> > own agenda, I'm sad to see it happening again.  I continue to use my Red
> > Hat email address in public discussions, in my PR requests and review.
> > I've nothing to hide nor am I ashamed to be employed by a company like
> Red
> > Hat.  My legions lie with ActiveMQ and making the project and community a
> > better place.  I've put so much personal and emotional effort into this
> > project.  To have my votes and opinions abrogated just because I work
> for a
> > certain company I find shocking and not at all democratic.
> >
> > Actually, looking back through this vote thread to the people who voted
> +1,
> > who were accused of pushing an alternate agenda are actually the same
> > people who I see involved in the community on a day to day basis.  The
> same
> > people fixing bugs, answering user questions and doing releases.  And
> > they're not all employed by the same company.
> >
> > If people want to vote -1 to this, fair enough you're entitled to your
> vote
> > and I have no issue.  But, all this talk about companies pushing an
> agenda,
> > seems to me to be a bit of a guise to detract away from the actual
> subject
> > in hand.  TBH, I am sick of hearing about it.
> >
> > I respect the result of the vote.
> >
> > I am -1 on the idea of making Artemis TLP.
> > I am +1  on Bruce's suggestion on creating a Roadmap.  I think this is
> > really what we need right now.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Michael André Pearce <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> On the website front I’m happy to stick my hand up, giving it an
> overhaul
> >> and design inline with the new logo.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 22:57, Bruce Snyder <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I agree that the website needs an overhaul and I'm interested to take
> on
> >>> this task. I also agree that Artemis should somehow be made more
> >> prominent
> >>> on the website, but how to do this is more debatable. I will start a
> >>> separate discussion around this.
> >>>
> >>> More discussions on the dev list is *always* a good thing.
> >>>
> >>> Bruce
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ok... so, consider this a CANCEL on this vote...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we have things settled.. and some positive factors from this
> >>>> thread:
> >>>>
> >>>> - All agreed to make Artemis more prominent on the website.
> >>>> - Refactor the website... like.. now...  with Artemis being brought
> >>>> forward.. (the website needs a facelift regardless)
> >>>>    ... any volunteers here?
> >>>>    ... we will need a discuss here... Honestly I don't like the
> confluent
> >>>> wiki.
> >>>> - Have more discussions on the dev list
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> perl -e 'print
> >>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
> >>>
> >>> ActiveMQ in Action: http://bit.ly/2je6cQ
> >>> Blog: http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
> >>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
> >>
> >
>
--
*Christian Posta*
twitter: @christianposta
http://www.christianposta.com/blog
http://fabric8.io
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

jgenender
In reply to this post by Hadrian Zbarcea
Hadrian, +1, and very well said.  I had a response ready to go, but you
summed up the most parts.  I will fill in a few holes...

Martyn (and Chris I guess) I am asking that you please put down your
pitchforks.   The history of the players, not the employer per se, but the
small subset has caused quite a stir on this project and others that causes
serious mistrust on agendas.  Unfortunately you guys are somewhat collateral
damage and have likely not taken the time to look at the history in the mail
lists (and for those of you who are on private@) the knock down drag out,
bellicose, passive-aggressive attacks that come from this small contingent
of people who preceded you.  I won't call people out because this thread has
gotten way to personal already and that will not do anyone any good.  I'll
leave it to you to research for itself and perhaps it will shed some light
on what Hadrian has just stated, while it will show why there is mistrust.

Martyn and Chris, calling out a "what have you contributed" isn't cool.
Everyone is here because they contributed and have some form of blood,
sweat, and tears in this project.  Clamoring around and saying you are
better because you did a CVE or whatever, is hidden words for "I get paid to
work on open source... you don't so I can make the decisions and you have no
right".  Thats offensive.  Because guess what?  Once Bruce, me, Hadrian,
Arthur, and many others DID get paid to work on ActiveMQ and we DO care
about this project, even when we weren't paid.  I cant contribute 1/1000th
the volume you guys do anymore because I don't get paid to do it.  But I
surely care about this project, its community, and its future because I paid
my dues, just like you are doing today.  I mean with your argument, maybe a
contingent of the people who sit on the Apache Board should just resign
because they provide oversight and don't contribute swathes of code anymore?  

That said, the above is neither here nor there for the sake of this
conversation and it doesn't matter.  Its there to provide a bit of history
and hopefully hint to you guys on some of the arguments you are making that
really have no bearing on this vote.  Its just to provide some history.

The decisions made so far in this thread were nothing against Artemis, Red
Hat, etc.  It was project folks stating to get Artemis on track for
migration so it CAN become ActiveMQ 6 and be adopted.  People here want
Artemis to EARN its community.  I am sure you do!  Don't you want Artemis to
stand on its own 2 feet and have a community based on its own merits?  You
have 100% support for that here, yes even the -1 people.

AFAICT, we reached consensus.  Migration path and getting more prominence of
Artemis on the main AMQ website.

Lets move forward in a positive direction and stop the personal attacks and
sour grapes.  Everyone here wants to see Artemis succeed.  So lets do this.



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Matt Pavlovich-2
In reply to this post by jgenender
Jeff-   Lol.. whatever and you have never partnered with Red Hat?


On 12/6/17 5:43 PM, jgenender wrote:

> I'm sorry... just when we move forward, we take 2 steps back.
>
>
> Matt Pavlovich-2 wrote
>> I agree. I don't work for Red Hat either, but we do a ton of ActiveMQ
>> work and have products that support ActiveMQ. Artemis looks to be the
>> future and working to align the community to that end is a good thing imo.
> No... you don't work for Red Hat, but a solid business partner for sure!  No
> connections!
>
> https://mediadriver.com/red-hat/
>
> Come on guys.... lets stop the games... time to move on, no?  This is
> getting kind of out of hand... don't you agree?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Bruce Snyder
I'm sorry but I need to jump in here. The rhetoric in this discussion is
not only unnecessary but it is also highly unproductive. Instead of
resorting to petty disagreements, let's stop responding to this thread and
find a more productive topic on which to focus your energy.

Knock it off and go write some code.

Bruce

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Matt Pavlovich <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Jeff-   Lol.. whatever and you have never partnered with Red Hat?
>
>
>
> On 12/6/17 5:43 PM, jgenender wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry... just when we move forward, we take 2 steps back.
>>
>>
>> Matt Pavlovich-2 wrote
>>
>>> I agree. I don't work for Red Hat either, but we do a ton of ActiveMQ
>>> work and have products that support ActiveMQ. Artemis looks to be the
>>> future and working to align the community to that end is a good thing
>>> imo.
>>>
>> No... you don't work for Red Hat, but a solid business partner for sure!
>> No
>> connections!
>>
>> https://mediadriver.com/red-hat/
>>
>> Come on guys.... lets stop the games... time to move on, no?  This is
>> getting kind of out of hand... don't you agree?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.
>> html
>>
>
>


--
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://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/>
Twitter: http://twitter.com/brucesnyder
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Matt Pavlovich-2
I agree. I have not and will not start any attacks of that sort.
However, I must respond and defend anything inbound in a public forum.

On 12/7/17 9:49 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:

> I'm sorry but I need to jump in here. The rhetoric in this discussion is
> not only unnecessary but it is also highly unproductive. Instead of
> resorting to petty disagreements, let's stop responding to this thread and
> find a more productive topic on which to focus your energy.
>
> Knock it off and go write some code.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Matt Pavlovich <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Jeff-   Lol.. whatever and you have never partnered with Red Hat?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/6/17 5:43 PM, jgenender wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sorry... just when we move forward, we take 2 steps back.
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt Pavlovich-2 wrote
>>>
>>>> I agree. I don't work for Red Hat either, but we do a ton of ActiveMQ
>>>> work and have products that support ActiveMQ. Artemis looks to be the
>>>> future and working to align the community to that end is a good thing
>>>> imo.
>>>>
>>> No... you don't work for Red Hat, but a solid business partner for sure!
>>> No
>>> connections!
>>>
>>> https://mediadriver.com/red-hat/
>>>
>>> Come on guys.... lets stop the games... time to move on, no?  This is
>>> getting kind of out of hand... don't you agree?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.
>>> html
>>>
>>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

jgenender
In reply to this post by Bruce Snyder
+1 Bruce... thank you.

I wish we could lock threads... like in forums...

Lets puhlease puhlease move on... this is just getting tiring.  The personal
attacks have to stop.



--
Sent from: http://activemq.2283324.n4.nabble.com/ActiveMQ-Dev-f2368404.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] ActiveMQ Artemis becomes ActiveMQ 6

Hadrian Zbarcea
In reply to this post by jgenender
Agree with Jeff. I will address another question that was raised, I
think by Chris, below. I think it was aggressive, not characteristic to
him, so let's say he deserves an honest answer.

First off, I am not sure what your definition of contributions to the
project is. I am also curious what level of contributions is sufficient
for you, so one can gain your respect and have a civil conversation. The
question itself reflects either ignorance of how the ASF works and the
Apache Way, or ignorance of what I do. Or frustration, let's go with that.

Let's say that my contributions to the foundation itself don't count (I
probably have more than all of you together). If my memory serves me
well in the past 2 maybe 3 years I am the only one who presented on
ActiveMQ at ApacheCon (with Jamie Goodyear once) and other conferences.
That's community building, that's something you should do for Artemis.
Does that count?

Let's take Bruce, who's a dear friend. Not a lot of code contributions
to ActiveMQ (you should check). But you know what, back in 2005-2007 he
was the most passionate evangelist for ActiveMQ and the project wouldn't
be what it is without him. Seriously. He helped many early adopters be
wowed by what ActiveMQ could do. I would love to provide concrete
examples (public info), just ask.

I did slow down the code contributions, true, but that doesn't make me
less actively involved in the project, actually probably even more,
because, like Art, Jeff, Jamie (and many others who are not committers
in spite of more contributions than some current committers) we continue
driving adoption of ActiveMQ.

What I hope you all will understand is that users/companies made huge
investments in ActiveMQ. Your role is to protect, not trash this
investment (by creating the confusion you complain about). You need to
prove the viability of Artemis via adoption, growing the community and
providing an effective migration path (ideally drop in replacement) for
ActiveMQ to aspire to be called AMQ6.

Food for thought,
Hadrian


On 12/07/2017 10:07 AM, jgenender wrote:
> Hadrian, +1, and very well said.  I had a response ready to go, but you
> summed up the most parts.  I will fill in a few holes...
>

> Everyone is here because they contributed and have some form of blood,
> sweat, and tears in this project.  Clamoring around and saying you are
> better because you did a CVE or whatever, is hidden words for "I get paid to
> work on open source... you don't so I can make the decisions and you have no
> right".  Thats offensive.  Because guess what?  Once Bruce, me, Hadrian,
> Arthur, and many others DID get paid to work on ActiveMQ and we DO care
> about this project, even when we weren't paid.  
1234