qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jr...@redhat.com
Subject Re: [VOTE] Proton JIRA project
Date Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:14:21 GMT
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Rafael Schloming wrote:
>
> [ ] Yes, create a JIRA project for Proton.
> [X] No, bah, humbug, Proton can suck it.

(Nice framing.)

Since this isn't consensus voting, I can safely vote my conscience.
I'm opposed to creating a distinct proton subproject at qpid as it's
been described, and I therefore oppose the new jira project and
mailing list.  I'll try to explain my position.

   * I support the idea of proton as an independent top-level project.

   * I support the "area of focus" that proton represents.

   * I think qpid ought to shift its focus to one like proton's.

   * "Qpid" is the brand of our project, and we should not confuse or
     dilute it by introducing a competing brand.  Let's not be naive.
     This is already happening.  People are saying "I know proton is
     not qpid", or they refer to "proton" alone, dropping the qpid part
     (as you would naturally do).

   * The drive to avoid the qpid brand is based on a perception that
     qpid is resistant to change and unfriendly to other projects.
     This is quite false.  I think you can tell this from the
     discussion on the proton threads to date.  We should spend our
     energy correcting this perception.  Allowing proton-the-brand to
     gain favor is imo evading the problem.

   * So, if the focus that proton represents is to be hosted at qpid,
     it should be hosted as a proper component (I think, component*s*)
     of qpid, not a semi-independent subproject.  We already have a
     number of distinct components, none of which have called for
     distinct jira projects or lists.

A little more on component versus project.  A component is something
with a defined role in the context of a broader system.  As I
understood it initially, proton was to be a protocol engine and some
network io integration, and I was comfortable with it as just that.

However, Rafi wants proton to have an openendedness, an ability to
grow in unforeseen directions.  For instance, to incorporate new
messaging APIs.  In contrast to his view, I want *qpid* to do that.

Second option, also good: I want proton to do that as its own project,
and I'll go focus my effort there.

That's my honest take.  I recognize this vote is going the other way,
and I'm perfectly at ease with that.  I'm simply glad to have the
opportunity to express my outlook plainly.

Justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message