hi mark
it's pretty much the scenario that you describe that concerns me. phil has
certainly been the most active member of the commons-math development team
but commons-math was originate by myself. 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.
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.
- 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: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
|