[ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
35 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

James Carman
We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted to
gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by way
of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may be),
would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to
becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the ring?

p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there who
are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

FW: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

Dennis E. Hamilton
Seemed fair to provide this here after all.  Note the PPS.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 09:12
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: RE: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
>

[orcmid]

For a Math Podling and PPMC,

>
> Would the scope be the same?
>
> Would Commons Math go to the Attic?
>
> Is there some problem that this is meant to solve?  How is it a
> solution?
>
>  - Dennis
>
> PS: I have labored through the dev-commons thread on [Math] Commons Math
> (r)evolution, and a few other of the June math-related posts.  I think
> going through the effort to create an Incubation proposal would be
> useful.  You will have to come to grips, and clarity, on whether and to
> what extent this is effectively an ASF-internal fork.  Not that there is
> anything wrong with that.  It is leaving it unresolved that strikes me
> as solving nothing.
>
> PPS: Not cross-posting.  The interested parties may need to come to
> general-incubator to begin appreciating for themselves what is involved.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Carman [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 03:26
> > To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>;
> > [hidden email]
> > Subject: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
> >
[ ... ]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

garydgregory
In reply to this post by James Carman
Even though I am not a SME, I'd be happy to help Math as the community sees
fit, IPMC, TLP, PMC or any TLA ;-)

Gary
On Jun 11, 2016 3:26 AM, "James Carman" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted to
> gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by way
> of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may be),
> would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to
> becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the
> ring?
>
> p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there who
> are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

Niclas Hedhman
In reply to this post by James Carman
If you have a functioning community around Commons Math already, why do you
feel you need Incubation?

People on a Math TLP would come out of the Commons PMC and simply submit a
Board Resolution, and I doubt that there would be any objects. There are no
legal concerns, no community training, no need for release management
training, and so on...

Or are you looking at a situation where the Commons community has no
interest in Math subproject, and need new blood?


Cheers
Niclas

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:25 PM, James Carman <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted to
> gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by way
> of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may be),
> would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to
> becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the
> ring?
>
> p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there who
> are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice.
>



--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

Ralph Goers
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.  

Ralph

> On Jun 11, 2016, at 6:21 PM, Niclas Hedhman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> If you have a functioning community around Commons Math already, why do you
> feel you need Incubation?
>
> People on a Math TLP would come out of the Commons PMC and simply submit a
> Board Resolution, and I doubt that there would be any objects. There are no
> legal concerns, no community training, no need for release management
> training, and so on...
>
> Or are you looking at a situation where the Commons community has no
> interest in Math subproject, and need new blood?
>
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:25 PM, James Carman <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted to
>> gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by way
>> of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may be),
>> would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to
>> becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the
>> ring?
>>
>> p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there who
>> are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

Ted Dunning
Looking back through the discussion, it is a bit of a problem that one of
the major reasons given for the fork is that the team thought that they
didn't have a large enough PMC and that incubation wouldn't get them enough
additional contributors. That made it seem like the project should go
forward without meeting Apache requirements (i.e. outside).

Is the situation really that different now that a vastly diminished team is
likely to benefit from incubation enough to form a viable TLP?

(I hate that this sounds negative ... it is a real question)



On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>
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.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Jun 11, 2016, at 6:21 PM, Niclas Hedhman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > If you have a functioning community around Commons Math already, why do
> you
> > feel you need Incubation?
> >
> > People on a Math TLP would come out of the Commons PMC and simply submit
> a
> > Board Resolution, and I doubt that there would be any objects. There are
> no
> > legal concerns, no community training, no need for release management
> > training, and so on...
> >
> > Or are you looking at a situation where the Commons community has no
> > interest in Math subproject, and need new blood?
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> > Niclas
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:25 PM, James Carman <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted
> to
> >> gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by
> way
> >> of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may
> be),
> >> would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to
> >> becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the
> >> ring?
> >>
> >> p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there
> who
> >> are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> > http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

jochen-2
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Ted Dunning <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Looking back through the discussion, it is a bit of a problem that one of
> the major reasons given for the fork is that the team thought that they
> didn't have a large enough PMC and that incubation wouldn't get them enough
> additional contributors. That made it seem like the project should go
> forward without meeting Apache requirements (i.e. outside).
>
> Is the situation really that different now that a vastly diminished team is
> likely to benefit from incubation enough to form a viable TLP?
>
> (I hate that this sounds negative ... it is a real question)

We can't tell you. It is just, that some of us (including me) have the
feeling/opinion, that going through the Incubator is the path, where
the chances are best to attract new committers.

Jochen


--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"

http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

jochen-2
In reply to this post by James Carman
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 12:25 PM, James Carman
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted to
> gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by way
> of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may be),
> would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to
> becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the ring?
>
> p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there who
> are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice.

As I already wrote elsewhere: I could (and would) put an IPMC hat on.
(And a mentors hat as well.)


--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"

http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

John D. Ament
In reply to this post by jochen-2
Generally speaking, incubation is to nurture a community to adopting the
Apache Way.  This includes self governance, community growth and licensing
policies.

We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to.  We
have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community doesn't
work.  It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do.

John

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:07 PM Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Ted Dunning <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Looking back through the discussion, it is a bit of a problem that one of
> > the major reasons given for the fork is that the team thought that they
> > didn't have a large enough PMC and that incubation wouldn't get them
> enough
> > additional contributors. That made it seem like the project should go
> > forward without meeting Apache requirements (i.e. outside).
> >
> > Is the situation really that different now that a vastly diminished team
> is
> > likely to benefit from incubation enough to form a viable TLP?
> >
> > (I hate that this sounds negative ... it is a real question)
>
> We can't tell you. It is just, that some of us (including me) have the
> feeling/opinion, that going through the Incubator is the path, where
> the chances are best to attract new committers.
>
> Jochen
>
>
> --
> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>
>
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

Ted Dunning
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:29 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to.  We
> have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community doesn't
> work.  It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do.
>

Frankly, the exceptions to this observation (such as Drill) pretty much
reinforce the conclusion. Drill managed to build a community, but only
because of a LOT of effort on the part of the founders of the project.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

jochen-2
In reply to this post by John D. Ament
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:29 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to.  We
> have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community doesn't
> work.  It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do.

Understood. On the other hand: Would that be sufficient reason for
rejecting a proposal? ("It didn't
work in the past" != "It won't work in this case")


--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"

http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

Ted Dunning
Jochen,

The need to build the community (nearly) from scratch is definitely NOT a
reason for rejection. It is simply a risk factor that must be mitigated to
succeed in incubation.


On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:29 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to.  We
> > have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community
> doesn't
> > work.  It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do.
>
> Understood. On the other hand: Would that be sufficient reason for
> rejecting a proposal? ("It didn't
> work in the past" != "It won't work in this case")
>
>
> --
> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>
>
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

John D. Ament
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:17 PM Ted Dunning <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Jochen,
>
> The need to build the community (nearly) from scratch is definitely NOT a
> reason for rejection. It is simply a risk factor that must be mitigated to
> succeed in incubation.
>

Yep absolutely.  I don't think the incubator has ever rejected a project?


>
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Jochen Wiedmann <
> [hidden email]
> > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:29 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to.
> We
> > > have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community
> > doesn't
> > > work.  It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do.
> >
> > Understood. On the other hand: Would that be sufficient reason for
> > rejecting a proposal? ("It didn't
> > work in the past" != "It won't work in this case")
> >
> >
> > --
> > The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

Ted Dunning
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:21 AM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Yep absolutely.  I don't think the incubator has ever rejected a project?
>

We have discouraged some submissions. But I have never seen a formal
submission be denied.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

Gilles Sadowski
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
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?

What's the next step?


Regards,
Gilles

> Ralph
>
>> On Jun 11, 2016, at 6:21 PM, Niclas Hedhman <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> If you have a functioning community around Commons Math already, why
>> do you
>> feel you need Incubation?
>>
>> People on a Math TLP would come out of the Commons PMC and simply
>> submit a
>> Board Resolution, and I doubt that there would be any objects. There
>> are no
>> legal concerns, no community training, no need for release
>> management
>> training, and so on...
>>
>> Or are you looking at a situation where the Commons community has no
>> interest in Math subproject, and need new blood?
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Niclas
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:25 PM, James Carman
>> <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just
>>> wanted to
>>> gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP
>>> by way
>>> of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name
>>> may be),
>>> would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community
>>> prior to
>>> becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in
>>> the
>>> ring?
>>>
>>> p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks
>>> there who
>>> are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>> http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

Ted Dunning
Excuse me?

See inline.



On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gilles <[hidden email]>
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?


>
> What's the next step?
>

Let's get to a common understanding of what went before.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

Gilles Sadowski
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
> <[hidden email]>
> 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:
   http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp
   http://markmail.org/message/3gupcednhqtcfepw
   http://markmail.org/message/3kob7djjicax6rgn
   http://markmail.org/message/7rb2mxq7hhwzykvr

And again in another thread:
   http://markmail.org/message/fnlta2ttfne3aj5f

>>
>> 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: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

Ted Dunning
Gilles,

Thanks for links.

I just read that (long-winded) thread and I see no consensus that "Commons
project is not being interested in hosting those components".

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.



On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Gilles <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]>
>> 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:
>   http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp
>   http://markmail.org/message/3gupcednhqtcfepw
>   http://markmail.org/message/3kob7djjicax6rgn
>   http://markmail.org/message/7rb2mxq7hhwzykvr
>
> And again in another thread:
>   http://markmail.org/message/fnlta2ttfne3aj5f
>
>
>>> 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: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

Gilles Sadowski
Hi.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:01:20 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Gilles,
>
> Thanks for links.
>
> I just read that (long-winded) thread and I see no consensus that
> "Commons
> project is not being interested in hosting those components".

In line with what I wrote previously, there isn't any consensus on
anything
within Commons.

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.
Or can I jut do it?  [Some help with doing that is most welcome.]

> 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.

There is a confusion here: *I* say that CM is dead.

It was dead already in early February but nobody noticed because *I*
(alone) continued to answer the ML, comment on JIRA reports and commit
code.

Why I was alone doing that became clear when Luc announced his
resignation
and the fork.

The development situation *will* change because the context *has*
changed
(unsupported code).
CM cannot go on as it did before the fork.

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.).

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.

Given the uncertain outcome, going through the incubator would be an
attempt at rethinking the development of the currently unsupported
code.  See e.g.
   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-172
[Or is that out of scope for an incubation proposal?]


Gilles

> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Gilles
> <[hidden email]>
> 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
>>> <[hidden email]>
>>> 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:
>>   http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp
>>   http://markmail.org/message/3gupcednhqtcfepw
>>   http://markmail.org/message/3kob7djjicax6rgn
>>   http://markmail.org/message/7rb2mxq7hhwzykvr
>>
>> And again in another thread:
>>   http://markmail.org/message/fnlta2ttfne3aj5f
>>
>>
>>>> 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: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

Jörg Schaible
In reply to this post by Ted Dunning
Hi Gilles,

Gilles wrote:

> Hi.
>
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:01:20 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
>> Gilles,
>>
>> Thanks for links.
>>
>> I just read that (long-winded) thread and I see no consensus that
>> "Commons
>> project is not being interested in hosting those components".
>
> In line with what I wrote previously, there isn't any consensus on
> anything
> within Commons.
>
> 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.
> Or can I jut do it?  [Some help with doing that is most welcome.]


-1 (and this is a veto)

Not unless the future of the existing CM is clarified and we get (majority
?) consensus here on the list.


>> 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.
>
> There is a confusion here: *I* say that CM is dead.
>
> It was dead already in early February but nobody noticed because *I*
> (alone) continued to answer the ML, comment on JIRA reports and commit
> code.
>
> Why I was alone doing that became clear when Luc announced his
> resignation
> and the fork.
>
> The development situation *will* change because the context *has*
> changed
> (unsupported code).
> CM cannot go on as it did before the fork.


And this is exactly the question. For me as PMC member of Commons I have to
look at all components and it is not the first time that the original
authors of a component vanishes and it won't be the last. Either new people
will stay up to carry on (there are already some new ones) or the component
is moved at some point into dormant state, because it gets obsolete (maybe
because of the fork, future will tell).

However, we care for all Commons components and their usage in the wild.
Nearly all of our components are buried deep down in some software stacks
and therefore we always take care to an extreme extent to compatibility of
new releases. With your proposal to rip CM into parts you leave the current
users of CM out in the rain. *You* tell them simply to use your new shiny
components A and B and for the rest they should stay at old CM (that still
contains on top the old stuff of A and B). Sorry, but this is not a proper
scenario for Commons.


> 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.).


Again, this is *your* point of view and it is caused by *your* refusal to
consider a CM release that contains the existing code base, just because
this includes also code *you* cannot/will not/have no interest to support or
maintain. Nobody asked the latter of *you*, just to keep the code untouched
where you have no interest to work with. Nobody would stop you from working
on the rest.


> 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.
>
> Given the uncertain outcome, going through the incubator would be an
> attempt at rethinking the development of the currently unsupported
> code.  See e.g.
>    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-172
> [Or is that out of scope for an incubation proposal?]


The incubator seems at least to be an option to go forward with CM.

- Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

12