commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <>
Subject Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?
Date Wed, 03 Aug 2016 15:16:39 GMT
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 07:09:50 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> On Aug 3, 2016, at 3:46 AM, Gilles <> 
>> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 23:59:23 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>> On Aug 2, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Gilles <> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Most PMC members seem to wish that CM becomes dormant.
>>>> I totally agree with you that it would be good to have _that_
>>>> clarified.
>>> I have no idea how that is your takeaway from all the discussions.
>>> The point I have tried to make is that CM needs a community of
>>> committers, not just you.
>> The current situation is that there is only me (with commit
>> privilege).
>> Without me, all development activity would have stopped more than
>> 8 months ago.  [That's an observational fact.]
>> There are volunteers for following up on my proposals but, indeed,
>> their statements seem to count for nothing.
>> Isn't it awkward that people like Rob Tompkins, formerly interested
>> in contributing to CM feels compelled to find "something else" to do
>> here in order to get noticed, and perhaps later (or perhaps never)
>> get the authorization to do what he really intended to in the first
>> place?
> There isn’t enough to do in CM to warrant becoming a Commons
> committer? I am pretty sure that isn’t true. People don’t have to 
> work
> on different things, they just have to work on enough and participate
> enough to have someone propose them as a committer. BTW - did I miss
> your nominations for committers to help on Math?

Nominations?  Based on what?
Everyone here has the same information as I do about the would-be

Would you vote positively at this point?

They want to work on CM but that would imply that I am the sole relay
to the repository, for reviewing, commenting, checking, committing,

With current CM, this includes bits of code on which I'd rather not
comment anymore...

>> If this PMC intended to discourage contributors, that would be a
>> nice way.
>>> My position has always been that having
>>> discussions about what to do with the code is a waste of time when 
>>> you
>>> are the only committer doing anything.
>> IMHO, you get things upside down (as did the CM team all along):
>> people come to contribute because they are interested in the code
>> (be it to add to it, up to completely overhaul it, from time to
>> time).
>> Where the project is heading to is a fundamental aspect for
>> deciding whether one wants to contribute.
>> As an example, Artem Barger is interested in improving the
>> "machine-learning" package.
>> As it happens, I'm also interested in that part of CM.  Why
>> should we have to carry the burden of the pack of codes left
>> behind by the forkers and _literally_ waste our time maintaining
>> something that either we don't use or needs thorough refactoring?
>> The extracting of modules would make it clear to users and
>> would-be contributors what is currently being worked on and what
>> is in need of maintainers.
>> But the Commons PMC does indeed "prefers" a monolithic and
>> _dormant_ CM.
> Bull pucky.  That is just your interpretation.

No, it's not just an interpretation.
Several people, not contributing to CM (Oh, again, I said it)
said they "prefer" a single component.  When asked to explain
their rationale, there is just "feeling".

So if they won't "feel" like voting for a release, it's disrespectful
to ask people like Rob or Artem to work on these codes.

I can understand that not everyone is interested in those
components, but that there is only a minority (i.e. me) here
interested in them should prompt for action, not idly waiting
for the matter to go into oblivion.  That would the role of
a useful PMC.

James tried to do something.
Jochen tried.
I tried.

Everything blocked by a diffuse "feeling".

> I have no problem with
> whatever the community wants to do.

If that were true, you could have said that the newcomers who
want to work on a revised CM are welcome to do so, and the
output of that work would normally be adopted by Commons
(unless it's proven crappy of course).

>>> Moving Math to the incubator
>>> would have allowed you to have a much lower barrier to add new
>>> committers, but you didn’t really want to discuss doing that.
>> This is plain false.
>> Incubator PMC people said that it was one-of-a-kind situation,
>> noting that the incubator's usual task was to create an Apache
>> project around an existing community, not to discuss how to
>> create one.
> Bull pucky again.

Send that to the concerned people.

> The Logging PMC (of which I am currently the
> chair) moved Log4cxx to the incubator to try to build a larger
> community. All the committers had disappeared but we had people on 
> the
> mailing list saying they wanted to work on it. So we moved it to the
> incubator where they got commit access. The Logging project is much
> like commons where when you have commit access you can work on any
> subproject, so we had the same reluctance to give unproven people
> commit access.

Again, wrong, wrong, comparison: logging is limited scope, "math"
is not.  We go to the incubator to do _what_?
That's a real question.  If Jochen has answers...


> Ralph

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

View raw message