incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <>
Subject Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
Date Sat, 18 Jun 2016 19:05:44 GMT
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 11:00:34 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Gilles 
> <>
> wrote:
>> ...
>> I'm asking, again, whether I need to initiate a VOTE that would 
>> allow me
>> to set up a workspace ("git", etc.) and transfer some code from CM 
>> over
>> there.
> Nothing is stopping you from setting something up.  Github is usually 
> the
> easiest way.
> It doesn't sound like that is what you want, however. I don't 
> understand
> why not.

And I don't understand that Apache would indeed prefer that code be 
rather than evolved here...

>> It may be that incubation is a good thing for Commons Math, but it 
>> doesn't
>>> seem valid to say that incubation is necessary because CM is being 
>>> kicked
>>> out of Commons.
>> Never said so.
> Hmm... I must have misunderstood the comment about CM not being 
> interested
> in hosting "these components".

Commons is NOT interested in hosting the new components.
That much was made clear in Matt Benson's last post. [Maybe not 
to the incubator's ML.]

>> There is a confusion here: *I* say that CM is dead.
> Strong words. Such statements are often frustrating to others.

Not strong, just factual.

Maybe it will be revived in the future.
Until then, I proposed to *do* something while the others seem to only
want to wait.
Strange that the latter proposal seems more acceptable than mine.

> It does
> sound like the community has dwindled, perhaps beyond repair.

It sure sounds like it.
In fewer words: CM is dead.

> The development situation *will* change because the context *has* 
> changed
>> (unsupported code). CM cannot go on as it did before the fork.
> You can never go home. No project stays the same.

Well, some people in CM for years did their best to avoid change.
I didn't like that view and argue with them because they were
important contributors to CM.

I still have to argue, but now with non-contributors.
*This* makes no sense.

>> Everybody (developers, users, Commons PMC) would be better off with 
>> a
>> selected set of new (supported) components because this is something 
>> we
>> can easily do *now* (RERO, etc.).
> This was your assertion in the long email thread. It seemed that 
> there was
> significant counter-positions.

By non-contributors, using arguments that do not fit the CM history.

>> I'm OK to go through the incubator to do that; but I don't see that 
>> it
>> is an easier path.  Surely it looks longer.  And it seems that even 
>> the
>> incubator people doubt that it will lead anywhere.
> The incubator is for building community and adapting to Apache. If 
> you
> don't have a seed community, then incubator is the wrong place. You 
> need to
> have more than just you.

That's fair, but there are a few others; that was mentioned.

>> Given the uncertain outcome, going through the incubator would be an
>> attempt at rethinking the development of the currently unsupported
>> code.  See e.g.
>> [Or is that out of scope for an incubation proposal?]
> Incubator is not a place to rethink code. It is primarily for 
> building
> community.

I thought so.
So, that leaves us with TLP.  Back to square one.


>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Gilles 
>> <>
>>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:51:36 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
>>>> Excuse me?
>>>>> See inline.
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gilles 
>>>>> <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi all.
>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:01:13 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>>>> I thought this had been made clear.  Several months Commons 
>>>>>> voted to
>>>>>>> make Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people 
>>>>>>> involved
>>>>>>> with Commons Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for

>>>>>>> them,
>>>>>>> so they forked the project and left, effectively voiding the

>>>>>>> TLP vote
>>>>>>> since the proposed PMC is no longer valid.  There is one person

>>>>>>> left
>>>>>>> who was very involved in Commons Math and a few other people

>>>>>>> who have
>>>>>>> expressed interest in joining the new community.
>>>>>>> So this is a situation where we have an already existing code

>>>>>>> base
>>>>>>> where a lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a

>>>>>>> bit of
>>>>>>> it.  The new group of people who are interested are trying to
>>>>>>> determine how they should move forward. There is some talk of

>>>>>>> breaking
>>>>>>> Commons Math into smaller components and possibly dropping some

>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>> there is no one to maintain it.
>>>>>>> The "Commons" project not being interested in hosting those
>>>>>> components,
>>>>>> is the "incubator" a good place for the developers wishing to go

>>>>>> in
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> direction?
>>>>>> Perhaps before we move to next steps, could you provide some 
>>>>>> links to
>>>>> the
>>>>> discussion where it was decided that Commons is not interested in
>>>>> hosting
>>>>> these components?
>>>> I proposed to concretely examine this possibility in more than
>>>> one message:
>>>> And again in another thread:
>>>> What's the next step?
>>>>>> Let's get to a common understanding of what went before.
>>>> Even that seems impossible. :-(
>>>> Gilles

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

View raw message