commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: [all] Math needs a "user" email list.
Date Sat, 14 Aug 2004 16:25:11 GMT
Henri Yandell wrote:
> +1 to a request for Jakarta-Math-Discuss list. I'd like to be
> Apache-Math-Discuss, but that might cause issues, cf the Python mail list
> request a while back.

Sorry, but I am still -0 to splitting discussion or development of [math] 
from j-c.
> Why I like this: It is not tied to the commons-math code, but to the
> community that the commons-math code wants to join. I expect [math] to be
> using it for math discussion with commons-dev for Java related dev issues
> (such as maven, site etc) and releases. Average Java joes would still come
> to commons-user for [math] questions, so commons-math would have to be
> covering that too.
> I said +1 in that I'm prepared to go onto infrastructure and ask for
> this etc, get the PMC to ask for it or whatever.

Do we have jelly-user-discuss, digester-user-discuss, 
collections-user-discuss etc.?  I agree with Martin that j-c is one 
community and I see no compelling reason to split [math] off and some good 
reasons not to.  As a user of multiple commons components, I monitor both 
commons-dev and commons-user.  As a commons committer, I try to help out 
on both of these as well.  There are *lots* of benefits to having the 
additional eyeballs in the j-c community that I, at least, am not willing 
to give up. I also strongly disagree with the implication that we can 
separate discussion of "Java-related dev issues" from math-related ones. 
Commons-math is a Java math library.  Splitting the discussion in this way 
is like saying that [digester] or [jelly] should discuss XML-related 
issues on "digester-user-discuss" or "jelly-user-discuss" or that 
Stephen's recent post about Tree structures in [collections] should be on 
"collections-user-discuss."   This is not good for the community, IMHO. 
It also threatens to move us away from the code-centric model that makes 
Apache work (again, IMHO).


> Hen
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2004, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>I argued for Apache Math as I believe its this best goal. Remember that size
>>is not what defines a TLP, community is. However, as none of the main [math]
>>developers want this at present we need to find a second solution.
>>I am more convinced of the need now. The proposed new list is in fact not
>>really a "user" list in the classic definition that we have. It is much more
>>of a discussion list.
>>The only question I have is whether votes, and actual code discussions will
>>occur on this list or not. (And I ask that from a supervision point of
>>view - HttpClient lost supervision/review when they created a new list)
>>So, I reckon that commons-math-user (or commons-math-discuss?) could be the
>>best solution to the problem. Consider me +0.5 so long as votes and true
>>code discussions remain on commons-dev.
>>>>Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>>>I'd also suggest that 3 months after creating it, Mark would have to
>>>>>justify the creation by showing that community has begun to grow.
>>>>I think math could accept such an agreement. What would be a
>>>>justification, "list activity" above a certain threshold?
>>>Existence of community. No idea how you measure this :) Noise is one,
>>>number of active members would be a better one, but you have to measure
>>>active as people making noise.
>>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