commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niall Pemberton <>
Subject Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
Date Sun, 19 Jun 2016 02:08:19 GMT
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Gilles <>

> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 11:53:37 -0500, Matt Benson wrote:

>> I think it is indicative of the position held by many, myself included,
>> that a set of focused, math-related artifacts do not make sense at the
>> Commons component level, and should be grouped as separate artifacts of
>> Commons math or a TLP with the same basic structure.
> We are getting close to the real problem.
> Can we draw the conclusion, at last, that Commons Math does not make
> sense in Commons?  [I'd hope so; since you make the point that even a
> general functionality like random number generation would not make
> sense here, then a monolithic library (with all sorts of math-related
> functionalities) makes even less sense here.]
> So I think that we could summarize the situation as follows:
>  * -1 for new components (Commons refuses)
>  * -1 for TLP (Commons refuses)
>  * -1 for incubator (until the situation is "clarified")
>  * -1 for no change (no committer left)

There are two routes to a Math TLP - either directly (by board resolution)
or via the Incubator. No-one here can veto either of those routes and with
both routes the first thing to do would be to put together a proposal [1].
The ASF board decides whether they will accept the "direct to TLP" route -
and its usually based on having an existing experienced viable community.
If thats not possible, then the route through the incubator is the
alternative. Either way, you need to gather the people interested and write
a proposal, which from the various threads looks like the following:

 - Gilles Sadowski
 - James Carmen
 - Gary Gregory
 - Jochen Weidman
 - Rob Tomkins
 - Eric Barnhill
 - Artem Barger

Is there anyone else?



> Gilles

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message