commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: [MATH]: Current state of project?
Date Wed, 03 Aug 2016 20:55:29 GMT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Goers []
> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 11:30
> To: Commons Developers List <>;
> Subject: Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?
> > On Aug 3, 2016, at 9:55 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <> wrote:
> >
> > Side questions, below
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ralph Goers []
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 08:41
> >> To: Commons Developers List <>
> >> Subject: Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?
> > [ ... ]
> >> OK. Newcomers are free to work on whatever they want, whether it is
> >> fixing new bugs, refactoring code, creating new components. Whatever.
> >> And that doesn’t apply to just Commons Math but pretty much every
> >> project at the ASF. No one should have to tell you that that is
> allowed.
> >> As you have said a million times, you are currently the only one
> >> committing to CM so it is only going to be pretty much you who blocks
> >> commits.
> >>
> > [ ... ]
> >> You go to the incubator so that you have an lower bar for giving
> commit
> >> rights to people who are interested so you can build a community.
> >>
> >> Ralph
> > [orcmid]
> >
> > 1. My understanding is that any ASF committer has commit rights to
> Commons.  That is one case for a low barrier to entry. Of course, any
> committer will want to learn the way-of-working at Commons and any
> interesting subprojects, but commit rights is not itself an issue in
> this case, yes?
> >    Has that changed?
> That has not changed, but I am of the impression that the folks
> expressing interest in Commons Math don’t have commit rights to any ASF
> project.
> >
> > 2. I am not clear about the idea of a low-barrier to entry as a
> committer in an incubator versus here at Commons.  Although a common
> practice is to invite contributors to be committers and PPMC members at
> the same time, and there is emphasis on growing community, this need not
> be particularly different at a Top Level Project.  (Commons has the
> rather unique characteristic of many loosely-coupled subcomponents and I
> can't speak to how that figures in governance.)
> >    What is the thinking that it would be easier to grow in the
> incubator?  Visibility?  Focus?
> If you have someone who is a Commons Math user and isn’t otherwise
> involved in the ASF who would like to be a committer it would be far
> easier for them to do that in the incubator than in Commons. The PPMC is
> free to set the bar as low or as hight as they want while the Commons
> PMC may want to see more of a history then the PPMC would.

It's not clear to me whether that is actually true.  I think it will vary.  It might be easier
because of the specificity of the incubating project's scope and focus.  But, once an ASF
committer, always an ASF committer, whether first invited to a podling or to a top-level-project.
 That does not make one a committer on a particular project (other than Commons and, perhaps
still, Incubator, for the PPMC avenue), so there is still a matter of merit and gaining karma
elsewhere.  I think that, culturally, this is observed by Members too, even though there might
not be any mechanical barrier.

Is that accurate?

I agree there is the matter of who is interested in particular Commons subprojects, including
under Math, where there is specialized domain knowledge involved.

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

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

View raw message