commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <>
Subject Re: [Discuss][VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
Date Wed, 22 Jun 2016 23:13:55 GMT
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 12:14:19 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Gilles <> 
>> wrote:
>> But who is "us"?
>> Right now, I'm proposing to do something together.  And if you look
>> at the commit log, I'm the one doing something alone for the last 6
>> months.  Or CM would have dormant already.
>> I'm OK setting up the new components, with the help of those who are
>> inclined to do so (that's at least 3 other people).
>> I'm just respectfully asking that people respect me (or what I did
>> here, or the fact that I'm still here), and stop blocking any and
>> all initiatives!
> I think your response here points to the exact problem.  We (other
> Commons PMC members) are not trying to block any and all initiatives.
> My goals (in order) are:
> 1. Determine who the participants in the Commons community are.  A
> community consisting of just one person isn’t going to fly - either 
> as
> a Commons subproject, an incubator project or a TLP.  To me this is
> essential before proceeding down any path on what to do with the 
> code,
> which is primarily why you feel people keep blocking you.


The list of volunteers for maintaining the offshoots of the CM code 
here and in the prospective TLP) have been published several times over
the last 3 weeks, the last recap having been done by Niall Pemberton:

To which you answered:
  "This thread seems to have died. I am confused why no proposal has 
   created. 7 people is certainly enough to propose something. Or is the
   desire simply to remain a subproject of Commons?"

Well, I expressed my desire very precisely in the form of votes called
for by Jörg; and the other contributors seemed OK (overall) with the

> 2. Once a community is established that community should collectively
> decide how to proceed - either continue as a Commons sub-project, an
> incubator project or as a TLP. Note that the TLP would require board
> approval which would almost certainly require the recommendation of
> the Commons PMC.

Again, you refuse to recognize that there is another alternative for
some of this code.
What is blocking you from accepting to create the proposed new

> 3. That community should then collectively determine what to do with
> the Commons Math code base. Some of it could be offered back to
> Commons,

Offer "Commons" code to "Commons"?
I must be hallucinating.

> but that would require that Commons is interested in
> accepting it. For that  I would expect the VOTE thread to identify 
> who
> the individuals are that are committed to supporting the code being
> accepted, at least for a short while.

On the one hand, you don't care that CM is unsupported; on the other,
you expect that these new components have dedicated maintainers.

Is it not enough that at least 4 people expressed an interest?
Do you want them to sign a contract?

> IOW, I really feel like these vote threads are putting the cart
> before the horse.  But that is just my personal opinion. As you will
> note I have not voted on any of them, so I am not trying to block
> them. But I should also note that so far not many other PMC members
> have either.

That's the problem: either you consider that they are opposed to the
idea (by not voting +1) or you consider that they do not oppose (by
not voting -1).

What is the correct interpretation?


> Ralph

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

View raw message