commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim O'Brien <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] New Commiter Phil Steitz
Date Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:17:11 GMT
On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 01:46, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> .......................................... i'm glad to say that tim joined 
> and has done most of the spade work (good work, tim). it's a credit to the 
> commons-math community that the contribution by non-committers has been so 
> great. this points towards a healthy future for the component.

Thanks, most of the code contributions have been driven by
non-committers, they are the real driving force behind this particular
component.  As other non-committers (more qualified that I) are
attracted to the project and become committers, I'll take another step
back.  I think it is wise not to rush the process that is used to expand
the community (at least in Jakarta Commons).  Scope definition ->
promotion -> release -> +1 for Phil.  I eager to get to the end of that
list, but I think it is now a prerequisite.

If we wanted to say.... move commons-math to the incubator, then I think
it would be easier to expand the community, but that community would be
external to the existing community here.  Keeping commons-math in the
sandbox increases some of the hurdles, but in the end it will benefit
the community as a whole.

> there are other avenues in apache available for the development of code 
> bases - the incubator project or the commons project where the rules and 
> aims are different. but commons-math is in the sandbox and we need to be 
> careful about remaining within the bounds set.

I agree with Robert here in that commons-math is a Sandbox component and
that we need to be careful to adhere to the rules of the commons
sandbox. ( This is, of course, ironic because I was nominated for
[codec] which, at the time, was a Sandbox component.  :-) )

In other words, I think it'll be a race to see who starts Phils' [VOTE]
thread immediately after promotion (if we get to promotion, that is).   

> - robert
> On Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 11:35 PM, Mark R. Diggory wrote:
> > Robert,
> >
> > Your viewpoint is warranted and understandable, the motivation for the 
> > sandbox is to provide a means to refactor existing projects/fragments 
> > into better designed components, As such its fair to see its activity 
> > oriented to existing developers. I know I was voted in for both my 
> > interest in the Math component project and the past work I've done with 
> > Jelly and HttpClient.
> >
> > But IMHO, this is a unique case that should be reconsidered. Consider the 
> > following: a non-commiter reviews a project in the Commons, sees that 
> > there are avenues for enhancment or refactoring, and proposes a project 
> > to consolidate/enhance those features. This proposal is approved and a 
> > new sandbox project is born.  Because the one who proposed the project is 
> > not already a commiter, their efforts are diminished during the projects 
> > initial development. Thus "limiting" the projects productivity and future 
> > development.
> >
> > I don't believe math started as an independent project, math is the 
> > foster child of the lang project, based on decisions about enhancing and 
> > giving a home to the math features that are present there. As such, there 
> > is a grey area here.  As Phil's basis for proposing was on code in [lang]
> >  it possibly seems the responsibility for nominating commit rights falls 
> > on the shoulders of that original commons component [lang]. This is based 
> > on the discussions about placing math tools in lang that gave rise to the 
> > sandbox math development.
> >
> > Finally, To clarify, my specific reasons for nomination concern the fact 
> > that a large amount of "energy pushing this component forwards" is coming 
> > from Phil, being he initially proposed the project, isn't it unfair to 
> > exclude him from being a member of the team that brings it to maturity?
> >
> > Long live Jakarta-Commons,
> > Mark Diggory
> >
> >
> > robert burrell donkin wrote:
> >> i'm sad to do this (since i think that phil's demonstrated the qualities 
> >> required and i'd support a nomination when and if math makes it into the 
> >> commons proper) but i think that nominating people for contributions to 
> >> the sandbox will cause troubles (sooner or later) and also that it's 
> >> against the spirit of the common charter.
> >> as i understand it, the commons is responsible for supervising the 
> >> sandbox,
> >>  nothing more. the sandbox is not a subproject in it's own right and 
> >> exists only to allow apache developers to collaborate. i believe that 
> >> the commons can and should only elect committers for its own components.
> >>
> >> i also feel that one of the reasons stated by mark for nomination (that 
> >> we need him on board to make it to release) is not a good one. we in the 
> >> commons are charged by the ASF with supervising the sandbox. if there is 
> >> insufficient energy to push a component forwards then there will be 
> >> insufficient energy to properly supervise new committers.
> >
> >> i'd like to ask the math developers for a little patience. i'm convinced 
> >> that commons-math has a bright future but it will take a little time. i 
> >> also hope that phil doesn't take this personally (this isn't anything 
> >> against him personally but against the principle of nominating new 
> >> non-apache committers for sandbox components).
> >> -1
> >> - robert
> >> On Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 02:39 PM, Mark R. Diggory wrote:
> >>> I'm not sure if I have enough rights yet to nominate Phil Steitz for 
> >>> commiter (I just became a commiter myself). Phil is the initial 
> >>> proposal author on the math project. That in and of itself should be 
> >>> enough to warrant his inclusion. Phil has been supplying many patches 
> >>> and is now considering development of the "complex number" architecture

> >>> for the package. I think he would make an excellent commiter as he has 
> >>> done a great deal of work via patches to clarify the coding, testing 
> >>> and documentation standards for the math project. We *need* him to have

> >>> commit rights on this project before we can make it to release.
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> Mark Diggory
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message