Hi,
James, it's good that you bring this up here. This is something I've been
thinking about lately.
I agree that the mathematical knowledge that seems to be necessary to dig
into [MATH] goes beyond what you learn in Computer Science courses at
university. I usually skip discussions about math but they don't bother me
or anything (like Luc has feared).
Several people have expressed that there have been valuable contributions
on design related decisions from people without a mathematical background.
I'm always open for some design related chatter but I find it hard to
filter those messages. Maybe an additional tag would help here? Something
to tell me, that the discussion is not related to mathematical theory like
[MATH][DESIGN] or [MATH][API] or something like that?
To cut a long story short: If [MATH] wants to stay here, let it stay here.
:)
Benedikt
2013/8/28 Luc Maisonobe <luc@spaceroots.org>
> Le 27/08/2013 20:23, Oliver Heger a écrit :
> > Am 27.08.2013 15:57, schrieb Phil Steitz:
> >> On 8/27/13 6:31 AM, James Carman wrote:
> >>> It was mentioned the other day, so I thought I would propose a formal
> >>> discussion. Is it time to let [math] "leave the nest"? I would doubt
> >>> there are very many of us qualified to work on such a library here in
> >>> Commons. I have a degree in Mathematics, but I haven't used the
> >>> advanced math in such a long time that I probably wouldn't even really
> >>> know where to start. Would it be easier to build a larger community
> >>> around a new TLP? Would it be more visible that way, as opposed to
> >>> being tucked away in our little neck of the woods?
> >>
> >> Here is just one HO:
> >>
> >> We get big benefit from contributions from nonmathematicians in
> >> [math]. In fact, I suspect that most of the core developers are not
> >> mathematicians by training. Sure, we need mathematical knowledge to
> >> develop algorithms, but there is a boatload of stuff that we get
> >> valuable help from other commons community members on.
> >>
> >> I am not sure TLP would make much of a difference in terms of
> >> "visibility" and I don't think we are not really hurting for that,
> >> IMO. What we need is what other commons components need  committed
> >> committers. We have found them here and I am sure we will continue
> >> to find more.
> >>
> >> One final comment is that some of us also help on other components,
> >> so [math] is itself a source of volunteers for commons.
> >>
> >> So my HO is both [math] and commons are better off staying
> >> together. I understand fully; however, if those not interested in
> >> [math] feel differently and would rather see us move to TLP.
> >
> > My HO is also that [math] should stay here in commons. There is indeed
> > synergy.
>
> +1
>
>
> >
> > I use to skip the discussions requiring mathematical knowledge and
> > background, but the ones related to design and programming issues are
> > quite interesting.
>
> I hope we do not bother people too much with these discussions ... :(
>
> Luc
>
> >
> > Oliver
> >
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>> To unsubscribe, email: devunsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, email: devhelp@commons.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >> To unsubscribe, email: devunsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, email: devhelp@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > 
> > To unsubscribe, email: devunsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, email: devhelp@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> 
> To unsubscribe, email: devunsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: devhelp@commons.apache.org
>
>

http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
