commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <>
Subject Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?
Date Wed, 03 Aug 2016 14:09:50 GMT

> 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?

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

>> 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.  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.


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

View raw message