[DISCUSS][VOTE] New component: Rational numbers

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

[DISCUSS][VOTE] New component: Rational numbers

Dennis E. Hamilton
From the Peanut Gallery,

All of this discussion on (too many at once) [VOTE] threads suggest to me that the [VOTE]s are premature.  

I don't understand the inclination to conduct [VOTE]s here that are at best straw votes and generally serve to establish that there is no consensus because of all the qualifications that are placed on the few [VOTE]s that are apparently cast in the blur of discussions.

I think the key matter is that there is not enough discussion to tease out consensus and even find opportunities for lazy consensus.  Then a [VOTE] becomes a formal ratification in those rare cases where such a thing is required (e.g., to back up a personnel action or take a resolution to the Board).

I think these discussions about clustering/splitting the Commons Math components are very useful and interesting to observe.  The use of [VOTE] is worrisome and apparently useless other than for the attention it evokes.

 - Dennis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Gregory [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 08:30
> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
>
[ ... ]

>
> This (and new components VOTE thread) paints a more confusing picture
> than
> before to me.
>
> You are proposing to organize code into Commons Component/possible
> TLP/Attic/Something based on the current knowledge of some participants,
> including yourself, and I am grateful that you've been doing all this
> work.
> Part of me wants to stay out of the way and let the do-o-cracy play out
> but
> another part really feels this will be counter productive in the end
> (not
> to mention a lot of busy work.)
>
> As was mentioned by someone else before, people come and go, with
> different
> levels of expertise.
>
> For me, the keep-it-simple principle, not to mention least surprise says
> to
> keep whole the pile in one place, in Commons or as a TLP, either way.
> Whether we use more than one Maven module here or as a TLP is a
> different
> matter and not relevant to the residence of the code base. We have other
> Commons component that have multiple modules, no big deal.
>
> Gary
[ ... ]


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] New component: Rational numbers

Mark Thomas
On 22/06/2016 19:04, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> From the Peanut Gallery,
>
> All of this discussion on (too many at once) [VOTE] threads suggest to me that the [VOTE]s are premature.  
>
> I don't understand the inclination to conduct [VOTE]s here that are at best straw votes and generally serve to establish that there is no consensus because of all the qualifications that are placed on the few [VOTE]s that are apparently cast in the blur of discussions.
>
> I think the key matter is that there is not enough discussion to tease out consensus and even find opportunities for lazy consensus.  Then a [VOTE] becomes a formal ratification in those rare cases where such a thing is required (e.g., to back up a personnel action or take a resolution to the Board).
>
> I think these discussions about clustering/splitting the Commons Math components are very useful and interesting to observe.  The use of [VOTE] is worrisome and apparently useless other than for the attention it evokes.

+1

I have a very similar impression.

Mark


>
>  - Dennis
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gary Gregory [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 08:30
>> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
>>
> [ ... ]
>>
>> This (and new components VOTE thread) paints a more confusing picture
>> than
>> before to me.
>>
>> You are proposing to organize code into Commons Component/possible
>> TLP/Attic/Something based on the current knowledge of some participants,
>> including yourself, and I am grateful that you've been doing all this
>> work.
>> Part of me wants to stay out of the way and let the do-o-cracy play out
>> but
>> another part really feels this will be counter productive in the end
>> (not
>> to mention a lot of busy work.)
>>
>> As was mentioned by someone else before, people come and go, with
>> different
>> levels of expertise.
>>
>> For me, the keep-it-simple principle, not to mention least surprise says
>> to
>> keep whole the pile in one place, in Commons or as a TLP, either way.
>> Whether we use more than one Maven module here or as a TLP is a
>> different
>> matter and not relevant to the residence of the code base. We have other
>> Commons component that have multiple modules, no big deal.
>>
>> Gary
> [ ... ]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [DISCUSS][VOTE] New component: Rational numbers

garydgregory
In reply to this post by Dennis E. Hamilton
I wonder if we could reframe the way we are talking here.

I like that we have been fairly civilized.

I like that email let's me read and write at my own time. But we are going
in circles sometimes. With so many threads, it's hard to track it all.

I am not sure if a (video or not) conference call would help.

Maybe all that I am saying is that I should formalize my proposal (from an
earlier threads) and offer a VOTE/POLL with a list of choice where folks
order the list in their order and we use that result to move forward (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) So all we need now is
to agree on the shape of the table, I mean the list of choices.

Thoughts?

Gary



On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> From the Peanut Gallery,
>
> All of this discussion on (too many at once) [VOTE] threads suggest to me
> that the [VOTE]s are premature.
>
> I don't understand the inclination to conduct [VOTE]s here that are at
> best straw votes and generally serve to establish that there is no
> consensus because of all the qualifications that are placed on the few
> [VOTE]s that are apparently cast in the blur of discussions.
>
> I think the key matter is that there is not enough discussion to tease out
> consensus and even find opportunities for lazy consensus.  Then a [VOTE]
> becomes a formal ratification in those rare cases where such a thing is
> required (e.g., to back up a personnel action or take a resolution to the
> Board).
>
> I think these discussions about clustering/splitting the Commons Math
> components are very useful and interesting to observe.  The use of [VOTE]
> is worrisome and apparently useless other than for the attention it evokes.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gary Gregory [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 08:30
> > To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
> >
> [ ... ]
> >
> > This (and new components VOTE thread) paints a more confusing picture
> > than
> > before to me.
> >
> > You are proposing to organize code into Commons Component/possible
> > TLP/Attic/Something based on the current knowledge of some participants,
> > including yourself, and I am grateful that you've been doing all this
> > work.
> > Part of me wants to stay out of the way and let the do-o-cracy play out
> > but
> > another part really feels this will be counter productive in the end
> > (not
> > to mention a lot of busy work.)
> >
> > As was mentioned by someone else before, people come and go, with
> > different
> > levels of expertise.
> >
> > For me, the keep-it-simple principle, not to mention least surprise says
> > to
> > keep whole the pile in one place, in Commons or as a TLP, either way.
> > Whether we use more than one Maven module here or as a TLP is a
> > different
> > matter and not relevant to the residence of the code base. We have other
> > Commons component that have multiple modules, no big deal.
> >
> > Gary
> [ ... ]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] New component: Rational numbers

Jörg Schaible
Hi Gary

Gary Gregory wrote:

> I wonder if we could reframe the way we are talking here.
>
> I like that we have been fairly civilized.
>
> I like that email let's me read and write at my own time. But we are going
> in circles sometimes. With so many threads, it's hard to track it all.
>
> I am not sure if a (video or not) conference call would help.
>
> Maybe all that I am saying is that I should formalize my proposal (from an
> earlier threads) and offer a VOTE/POLL with a list of choice where folks
> order the list in their order and we use that result to move forward (see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) So all we need now is
> to agree on the shape of the table, I mean the list of choices.
>
> Thoughts?


We could use at least our wiki to collect the proposals. Following the
different threads is difficult and someone who did not follow closely to the
complete discussion has nearly no ground for a decision or can understand
why some proposals have been made.

Cheers,
Jörg


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] New component: Rational numbers

Gilles Sadowski
In reply to this post by Dennis E. Hamilton
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:04:48 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> From the Peanut Gallery,
>
> All of this discussion on (too many at once) [VOTE] threads suggest
> to me that the [VOTE]s are premature.
>
> I don't understand the inclination to conduct [VOTE]s here that are
> at best straw votes and generally serve to establish that there is no
> consensus because of all the qualifications that are placed on the
> few
> [VOTE]s that are apparently cast in the blur of discussions.
>
> I think the key matter is that there is not enough discussion to
> tease out consensus and even find opportunities for lazy consensus.
> Then a [VOTE] becomes a formal ratification in those rare cases where
> such a thing is required (e.g., to back up a personnel action or take
> a resolution to the Board).
>
> I think these discussions about clustering/splitting the Commons Math
> components are very useful and interesting to observe.  The use of
> [VOTE] is worrisome and apparently useless other than for the
> attention it evokes.

There was a vote because Jörg saw it as useful in order to decide
about the next step:
   http://markmail.org/message/2lvirahwxerq36d2

How much longer should we rehash the same arguments from all sides?

The bottom-line of all this is that there are people (new and old
contributors to CM) who wish to do things, and everything that they
say _they_ will do is blocked by people who never contributed to CM
and do not intend to.

Gilles


>  - Dennis
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gary Gregory [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 08:30
>> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers
>>
> [ ... ]
>>
>> This (and new components VOTE thread) paints a more confusing
>> picture
>> than
>> before to me.
>>
>> You are proposing to organize code into Commons Component/possible
>> TLP/Attic/Something based on the current knowledge of some
>> participants,
>> including yourself, and I am grateful that you've been doing all
>> this
>> work.
>> Part of me wants to stay out of the way and let the do-o-cracy play
>> out
>> but
>> another part really feels this will be counter productive in the end
>> (not
>> to mention a lot of busy work.)
>>
>> As was mentioned by someone else before, people come and go, with
>> different
>> levels of expertise.
>>
>> For me, the keep-it-simple principle, not to mention least surprise
>> says
>> to
>> keep whole the pile in one place, in Commons or as a TLP, either
>> way.
>> Whether we use more than one Maven module here or as a TLP is a
>> different
>> matter and not relevant to the residence of the code base. We have
>> other
>> Commons component that have multiple modules, no big deal.
>>
>> Gary
> [ ... ]
>


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] New component: Rational numbers

Jörg Schaible
Gilles wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:04:48 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> From the Peanut Gallery,
>>
>> All of this discussion on (too many at once) [VOTE] threads suggest
>> to me that the [VOTE]s are premature.
>>
>> I don't understand the inclination to conduct [VOTE]s here that are
>> at best straw votes and generally serve to establish that there is no
>> consensus because of all the qualifications that are placed on the
>> few
>> [VOTE]s that are apparently cast in the blur of discussions.
>>
>> I think the key matter is that there is not enough discussion to
>> tease out consensus and even find opportunities for lazy consensus.
>> Then a [VOTE] becomes a formal ratification in those rare cases where
>> such a thing is required (e.g., to back up a personnel action or take
>> a resolution to the Board).
>>
>> I think these discussions about clustering/splitting the Commons Math
>> components are very useful and interesting to observe.  The use of
>> [VOTE] is worrisome and apparently useless other than for the
>> attention it evokes.
>
> There was a vote because Jörg saw it as useful in order to decide
> about the next step:
>    http://markmail.org/message/2lvirahwxerq36d2
>
> How much longer should we rehash the same arguments from all sides?


The main problem is that the complete situation is unique. There has been no
precedence for such a case so far. I cannot think of splitting a commons
component in the last decade.

If the intent is to go TLP with complete CM and the resubmit some basic
stuff in a view light-weight new components for Commons. For those we might
as well shorten this path and take the direct way. Especially since two
attempts to vote for TLP got us nowhere until now.

> The bottom-line of all this is that there are people (new and old
> contributors to CM) who wish to do things, and everything that they
> say _they_ will do is blocked by people who never contributed to CM
> and do not intend to.

Again. Ouch.

- Jörg


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] New component: Rational numbers

Gilles Sadowski
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:58:10 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:

> Gilles wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:04:48 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>> From the Peanut Gallery,
>>>
>>> All of this discussion on (too many at once) [VOTE] threads suggest
>>> to me that the [VOTE]s are premature.
>>>
>>> I don't understand the inclination to conduct [VOTE]s here that are
>>> at best straw votes and generally serve to establish that there is
>>> no
>>> consensus because of all the qualifications that are placed on the
>>> few
>>> [VOTE]s that are apparently cast in the blur of discussions.
>>>
>>> I think the key matter is that there is not enough discussion to
>>> tease out consensus and even find opportunities for lazy consensus.
>>> Then a [VOTE] becomes a formal ratification in those rare cases
>>> where
>>> such a thing is required (e.g., to back up a personnel action or
>>> take
>>> a resolution to the Board).
>>>
>>> I think these discussions about clustering/splitting the Commons
>>> Math
>>> components are very useful and interesting to observe.  The use of
>>> [VOTE] is worrisome and apparently useless other than for the
>>> attention it evokes.
>>
>> There was a vote because Jörg saw it as useful in order to decide
>> about the next step:
>>    http://markmail.org/message/2lvirahwxerq36d2
>>
>> How much longer should we rehash the same arguments from all sides?
>
>
> The main problem is that the complete situation is unique. There has
> been no
> precedence for such a case so far. I cannot think of splitting a
> commons
> component in the last decade.

Comparison proves nothing.
The ML archive is littered by warnings of mine that CM was not a
component
like the other Commons components.
You persist by willing to treat it such although you now have seen that
the assumption led to a nasty situation for everyone.

> If the intent is to go TLP with complete CM and the resubmit some
> basic
> stuff in a view light-weight new components for Commons. For those we
> might
> as well shorten this path and take the direct way.

+1 RNG
+1 Complex numbers
+1 Math functions
+1 Rational numbers

> Especially since two
> attempts to vote for TLP got us nowhere until now.

All would-be contributors voted "yes".
A few non-contributors were mildly opposed.
Someone mentioned that no veto should apply.

So I don't get the "got us nowhere".

>> The bottom-line of all this is that there are people (new and old
>> contributors to CM) who wish to do things, and everything that they
>> say _they_ will do is blocked by people who never contributed to CM
>> and do not intend to.
>
> Again. Ouch.

Well, yes!
That's the way it is, to my dismay.

For all the discourse on diversity, and welcoming contributors,
and letting people who do things decide, the only thing that
was concretely accepted as "fine" is the fork of Commons Math
outside Apache!

While people who want to build something new out of the mess left
behind are struggling for weeks in order to be allowed to get to
productive work.

Non-contributors have nothing to loose, the Commons PMC members
have nothing to loose, by letting us try what we propose.
If it does not turn into something interesting, the situation will
be the same as it is now.
And you can start from the exact same point in the history of the
"Commons Math" code and try something else.

Gilles

> - Jörg


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] New component: Rational numbers

Dave Fisher
Is it possible for a committer in Commons to simply declare Lazy Consensus and checkin code to a new branch?

If so go ahead and see if a community forms. If a substantive conversation occurs.

If not then propose it and VOTE on giving Giles a branch (olive or fig) and see what happens?

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Gilles <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:58:10 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Gilles wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:04:48 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>>> From the Peanut Gallery,
>>>>
>>>> All of this discussion on (too many at once) [VOTE] threads suggest
>>>> to me that the [VOTE]s are premature.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand the inclination to conduct [VOTE]s here that are
>>>> at best straw votes and generally serve to establish that there is no
>>>> consensus because of all the qualifications that are placed on the
>>>> few
>>>> [VOTE]s that are apparently cast in the blur of discussions.
>>>>
>>>> I think the key matter is that there is not enough discussion to
>>>> tease out consensus and even find opportunities for lazy consensus.
>>>> Then a [VOTE] becomes a formal ratification in those rare cases where
>>>> such a thing is required (e.g., to back up a personnel action or take
>>>> a resolution to the Board).
>>>>
>>>> I think these discussions about clustering/splitting the Commons Math
>>>> components are very useful and interesting to observe.  The use of
>>>> [VOTE] is worrisome and apparently useless other than for the
>>>> attention it evokes.
>>>
>>> There was a vote because Jörg saw it as useful in order to decide
>>> about the next step:
>>>   http://markmail.org/message/2lvirahwxerq36d2
>>>
>>> How much longer should we rehash the same arguments from all sides?
>>
>>
>> The main problem is that the complete situation is unique. There has been no
>> precedence for such a case so far. I cannot think of splitting a commons
>> component in the last decade.
>
> Comparison proves nothing.
> The ML archive is littered by warnings of mine that CM was not a component
> like the other Commons components.
> You persist by willing to treat it such although you now have seen that
> the assumption led to a nasty situation for everyone.
>
>> If the intent is to go TLP with complete CM and the resubmit some basic
>> stuff in a view light-weight new components for Commons. For those we might
>> as well shorten this path and take the direct way.
>
> +1 RNG
> +1 Complex numbers
> +1 Math functions
> +1 Rational numbers
>
>> Especially since two
>> attempts to vote for TLP got us nowhere until now.
>
> All would-be contributors voted "yes".
> A few non-contributors were mildly opposed.
> Someone mentioned that no veto should apply.
>
> So I don't get the "got us nowhere".
>
>>> The bottom-line of all this is that there are people (new and old
>>> contributors to CM) who wish to do things, and everything that they
>>> say _they_ will do is blocked by people who never contributed to CM
>>> and do not intend to.
>>
>> Again. Ouch.
>
> Well, yes!
> That's the way it is, to my dismay.
>
> For all the discourse on diversity, and welcoming contributors,
> and letting people who do things decide, the only thing that
> was concretely accepted as "fine" is the fork of Commons Math
> outside Apache!
>
> While people who want to build something new out of the mess left
> behind are struggling for weeks in order to be allowed to get to
> productive work.
>
> Non-contributors have nothing to loose, the Commons PMC members
> have nothing to loose, by letting us try what we propose.
> If it does not turn into something interesting, the situation will
> be the same as it is now.
> And you can start from the exact same point in the history of the
> "Commons Math" code and try something else.
>
> Gilles
>
>> - Jörg
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [DISCUSS][VOTE] New component: Rational numbers

Ralph Goers
Gilles doesn’t need anyone’s permission to create a branch.  He only has a problem if someone votes -1. But I can’t imagine why anyone would vote -1 to a commit on a branch.  The only thing he needs permission for is making a release - in the form of 3 +1 votes and more +1’s than -1’s from PMC members.


Ralph

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 5:34 PM, Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Is it possible for a committer in Commons to simply declare Lazy Consensus and checkin code to a new branch?
>
> If so go ahead and see if a community forms. If a substantive conversation occurs.
>
> If not then propose it and VOTE on giving Giles a branch (olive or fig) and see what happens?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jun 22, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Gilles <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:58:10 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>> Gilles wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:04:48 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>>>> From the Peanut Gallery,
>>>>>
>>>>> All of this discussion on (too many at once) [VOTE] threads suggest
>>>>> to me that the [VOTE]s are premature.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand the inclination to conduct [VOTE]s here that are
>>>>> at best straw votes and generally serve to establish that there is no
>>>>> consensus because of all the qualifications that are placed on the
>>>>> few
>>>>> [VOTE]s that are apparently cast in the blur of discussions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the key matter is that there is not enough discussion to
>>>>> tease out consensus and even find opportunities for lazy consensus.
>>>>> Then a [VOTE] becomes a formal ratification in those rare cases where
>>>>> such a thing is required (e.g., to back up a personnel action or take
>>>>> a resolution to the Board).
>>>>>
>>>>> I think these discussions about clustering/splitting the Commons Math
>>>>> components are very useful and interesting to observe.  The use of
>>>>> [VOTE] is worrisome and apparently useless other than for the
>>>>> attention it evokes.
>>>>
>>>> There was a vote because Jörg saw it as useful in order to decide
>>>> about the next step:
>>>>  http://markmail.org/message/2lvirahwxerq36d2
>>>>
>>>> How much longer should we rehash the same arguments from all sides?
>>>
>>>
>>> The main problem is that the complete situation is unique. There has been no
>>> precedence for such a case so far. I cannot think of splitting a commons
>>> component in the last decade.
>>
>> Comparison proves nothing.
>> The ML archive is littered by warnings of mine that CM was not a component
>> like the other Commons components.
>> You persist by willing to treat it such although you now have seen that
>> the assumption led to a nasty situation for everyone.
>>
>>> If the intent is to go TLP with complete CM and the resubmit some basic
>>> stuff in a view light-weight new components for Commons. For those we might
>>> as well shorten this path and take the direct way.
>>
>> +1 RNG
>> +1 Complex numbers
>> +1 Math functions
>> +1 Rational numbers
>>
>>> Especially since two
>>> attempts to vote for TLP got us nowhere until now.
>>
>> All would-be contributors voted "yes".
>> A few non-contributors were mildly opposed.
>> Someone mentioned that no veto should apply.
>>
>> So I don't get the "got us nowhere".
>>
>>>> The bottom-line of all this is that there are people (new and old
>>>> contributors to CM) who wish to do things, and everything that they
>>>> say _they_ will do is blocked by people who never contributed to CM
>>>> and do not intend to.
>>>
>>> Again. Ouch.
>>
>> Well, yes!
>> That's the way it is, to my dismay.
>>
>> For all the discourse on diversity, and welcoming contributors,
>> and letting people who do things decide, the only thing that
>> was concretely accepted as "fine" is the fork of Commons Math
>> outside Apache!
>>
>> While people who want to build something new out of the mess left
>> behind are struggling for weeks in order to be allowed to get to
>> productive work.
>>
>> Non-contributors have nothing to loose, the Commons PMC members
>> have nothing to loose, by letting us try what we propose.
>> If it does not turn into something interesting, the situation will
>> be the same as it is now.
>> And you can start from the exact same point in the history of the
>> "Commons Math" code and try something else.
>>
>> Gilles
>>
>>> - Jörg
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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]
>
>



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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] New component: Rational numbers

Emmanuel Bourg-3
In reply to this post by Gilles Sadowski
Le 23/06/2016 à 01:36, Gilles a écrit :

> the only thing that
> was concretely accepted as "fine" is the fork of Commons Math
> outside Apache!

I don't remember voting and accepting the fork, do you? The fork was not
a decision from the Commons PMC. We had no other choice than
acknowledging it, because that's how the open source world works. So
even if it's indeed "fine" from a legal point of view, I don't consider
it good for the community and the code.

Emmanuel Bourg


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] New component: Rational numbers

Gilles Sadowski
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 08:53:22 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 23/06/2016 à 01:36, Gilles a écrit :
>
>> the only thing that
>> was concretely accepted as "fine" is the fork of Commons Math
>> outside Apache!
>
> I don't remember voting and accepting the fork, do you?

I did not mention "voting".

And "accepted as fine", it was (in a mail by Gary), even though
the real reasons for the fork were not given.

And "fine" was a summary of something like "it is best for all
parties".
Well, I don't think so.

For 10 years, I put up with _many_ things I disliked, because
I am convinced that team work is better (as long as the rules
are well defined). [It's the latter that was lacking in CM and
left so much room for arguing to no end.]

> The fork was not
> a decision from the Commons PMC. We had no other choice than
> acknowledging it, because that's how the open source world works.

Of course, but that's a very short summary.  It leaves out all the
context (like that there hasn't been any attempt to reconcile the
viewpoints).

What I'd have expected is a strong statement that the fork was
indeed not good (as you say below!).

> So
> even if it's indeed "fine" from a legal point of view,

 From a legal POV, we did not have to "acknowledge" anything.

> I don't consider
> it good for the community and the code.

My point, precisely.

Gilles

> Emmanuel Bourg


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