[MATH]: Current state of project?

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

[MATH]: Current state of project?

Artem Barger
Hello everyone,

It's been a while since there was a lot of hot discussion regarding the
future of the CM project, however I do not think that clear agreement was
reached. The reason I'm wondering is because I'd like to contribute to the
project and in fact already did, but doesn't looks like it gonna be
accepted/checked any soon.

I have reported following issues and provided PR with proposed fixes:

1. [MATH-1374] - https://github.com/apache/commons-math/pull/37
2. [MATH-1372] - https://github.com/apache/commons-math/pull/36
3. [MATH-1371] - https://github.com/apache/commons-math/pull/35

Reported and attached small improvement [MATH-1378].

Also I have some work in progress related to [MATH-1330].

I've been asking couple of times here in ML to review or suggest any
improvements for bugs I've reported and PR proposed, but apparently things
is not moving forward I guess due to the fact that there didn't remained
any active committers/contributes.

Is there any decision has been made? Is Math project could be considered as
"dead" and no more future development is going to happen?

I'm still willing to contribute to the project, but I'm really concern of
current "frozen" state, since it feels that any submition of changes or
reporting bugs to the project goes directly to "/dev/null".

Best regards,
                      Artem Barger.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Rob Tompkins


> On Aug 1, 2016, at 10:58 PM, Artem Barger <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> It's been a while since there was a lot of hot discussion regarding the
> future of the CM project, however I do not think that clear agreement was
> reached. The reason I'm wondering is because I'd like to contribute to the
> project and in fact already did, but doesn't looks like it gonna be
> accepted/checked any soon.

Hey Artem,

I agree. I've decided to make some contributions in commons more generally to gain report as to become a committer. Until I can do that, I'm guessing that it'll just be Gilles accepting pill requests.

Cheers,
-Rob

>
> I have reported following issues and provided PR with proposed fixes:
>
> 1. [MATH-1374] - https://github.com/apache/commons-math/pull/37
> 2. [MATH-1372] - https://github.com/apache/commons-math/pull/36
> 3. [MATH-1371] - https://github.com/apache/commons-math/pull/35
>
> Reported and attached small improvement [MATH-1378].
>
> Also I have some work in progress related to [MATH-1330].
>
> I've been asking couple of times here in ML to review or suggest any
> improvements for bugs I've reported and PR proposed, but apparently things
> is not moving forward I guess due to the fact that there didn't remained
> any active committers/contributes.
>
> Is there any decision has been made? Is Math project could be considered as
> "dead" and no more future development is going to happen?
>
> I'm still willing to contribute to the project, but I'm really concern of
> current "frozen" state, since it feels that any submition of changes or
> reporting bugs to the project goes directly to "/dev/null".
>
> Best regards,
>                      Artem Barger.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Artem Barger
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Rob Tompkins <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hey Artem,
>
> I agree. I've decided to make some contributions in commons more generally
> to gain report as to become a committer. Until I can do that, I'm guessing
> that it'll just be Gilles accepting pill requests.
>
> Cheers,
> -Rob
>

​Yeah, I was also thinking of that, however sounds a bit awkward, since I'm
mostly interested in contributing to the math rather to other projects. ​


Best regards,
                      Artem Barger.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Dennis E. Hamilton-2
In reply to this post by Rob Tompkins
There are a number of dangling [VOTE] threads that seem to devolve into inconclusive discussion.  Nevertheless, it would be useful for the creator of those votes to resolve them with [RESULT][VOTE] messages that account for any actual votes cast and where there were no votes.

In ASF parlance, these all seem to be procedural votes, so simple majority works (unless the Commons PMC has a well-established practice that differs) -- apart from the important effort to achieve a consensus result, where possible, by addressing possible cures for -1 votes.  And, of course, only the votes by PMC members are binding, with due respect to community votes in striving for consensus as well as it can be achieved.

There's a reason for this parliamentary business: arriving at clear conclusions and direction.  It may be that there is no such thing for the [MATH] dilemma.  It would be good to have even that clarified.

 - Dennis



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Tompkins [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 08:56
> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?
>
>
>
> > On Aug 1, 2016, at 10:58 PM, Artem Barger <[hidden email]> wrote:
[ ... ]

> > Is there any decision has been made? Is Math project could be
> considered as
> > "dead" and no more future development is going to happen?
> >
> > I'm still willing to contribute to the project, but I'm really concern
> of
> > current "frozen" state, since it feels that any submition of changes
> or
> > reporting bugs to the project goes directly to "/dev/null".
> >
> > Best regards,
> >                      Artem Barger.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Gilles Sadowski
On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 09:35:43 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> There are a number of dangling [VOTE] threads that seem to devolve
> into inconclusive discussion.  Nevertheless, it would be useful for
> the creator of those votes to resolve them with [RESULT][VOTE]
> messages that account for any actual votes cast and where there were
> no votes.

"[RESULT][VOTE]" messages were posted.

> In ASF parlance, these all seem to be procedural votes, so simple
> majority works (unless the Commons PMC has a well-established
> practice
> that differs) -- apart from the important effort to achieve a
> consensus result, where possible, by addressing possible cures for -1
> votes.

A couple negative votes were cast, without proposing an alternative
other than the status quo.

> And, of course, only the votes by PMC members are binding,
> with due respect to community votes in striving for consensus as well
> as it can be achieved.

The (non-binding) majority was in favour of creating the new
components proposed to the votes, and indicated a willingness to
work on a "reduced" CM (i.e. maintainable by the people currently
around).

However, the very low participation of binding voters and the
overall negative comments for anything but the status quo make
it fairly unlikely that the new components will get the three
necessary binding votes for release.

> There's a reason for this parliamentary business: arriving at clear
> conclusions and direction.  It may be that there is no such thing for
> the [MATH] dilemma.

What dilemma?

>  It would be good to have even that clarified.

I did try to explain (with rationale, examples and numbers) that
it was ample time to try something else; and I proposed my view
of that "something".

Most PMC members seem to wish that CM becomes dormant.
I totally agree with you that it would be good to have _that_
clarified.


Gilles

>  - Dennis
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rob Tompkins [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 08:56
>> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 1, 2016, at 10:58 PM, Artem Barger <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [ ... ]
>> > Is there any decision has been made? Is Math project could be
>> considered as
>> > "dead" and no more future development is going to happen?
>> >
>> > I'm still willing to contribute to the project, but I'm really
>> concern
>> of
>> > current "frozen" state, since it feels that any submition of
>> changes
>> or
>> > reporting bugs to the project goes directly to "/dev/null".
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >                      Artem Barger.
>>


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Ralph Goers

> On Aug 2, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Gilles <[hidden email]> 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. 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. 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.  So here we are.

Ralph

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Jörg Schaible-5
In reply to this post by Gilles Sadowski
Hi Gilles,

Gilles wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 09:35:43 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> There are a number of dangling [VOTE] threads that seem to devolve
>> into inconclusive discussion.  Nevertheless, it would be useful for
>> the creator of those votes to resolve them with [RESULT][VOTE]
>> messages that account for any actual votes cast and where there were
>> no votes.
>
> "[RESULT][VOTE]" messages were posted.

[snip]

At least for RNG you had three binding votes. Why not simply start with it
and if the overall experience is positive for the community regarding the
new component, people might reconsider their decision for the other proposed
components (or even make up their minds to vote at all).

Cheers,
Jörg



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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Gilles Sadowski
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 23:59:23 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:

>> On Aug 2, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Gilles <[hidden email]>
>> 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?

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.

> 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.

There was James Carman's proposal to create a TLP, but the PMC
did not want to approve of that, for reasons so unclear that it
led to James' resignation.

> So here
> we are.

Yes, because you and others seem to abstract from the current
reality, hoping that in some indeterminate future a bunch of
people will come and say: "Hey, where is that CM?  Let's have
fun with Java 5!".

The more time passes waiting for this unlikely future, the more
unlikely it becomes.

Even if you think that I'm wrong headed, I'd dare to say that
_anything_ is better than let this code rot.
Better to try and revive parts of it, even if it is impossible
to ensure success of these offsprings.
At any rate, nothing can be worse than what "happened" a few
months ago.
Counting how many "components" have been discontinued, I have
a hard time understanding the reluctance of this committee to
give a chance to a few others!


Gilles

>
> Ralph
>


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Ralph Goers

> On Aug 3, 2016, at 3:46 AM, Gilles <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 23:59:23 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> On Aug 2, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Gilles <[hidden email]> 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.

Ralph

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Gilles Sadowski
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 07:09:50 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:

>> On Aug 3, 2016, at 3:46 AM, Gilles <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 23:59:23 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>> On Aug 2, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Gilles <[hidden email]>
>>>> 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
committers.

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...


Gilles


> Ralph


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Ralph Goers

> On Aug 3, 2016, at 8:16 AM, Gilles <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 07:09:50 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> On Aug 3, 2016, at 3:46 AM, Gilles <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 23:59:23 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 2, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Gilles <[hidden email]> 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
> committers.

So why are you even bringing up that he has to go find something to work on?
>
> 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,

And that is a problem because….?   Actually,  any committer could apply the patches if they wanted to, but I am sure they wouldn’t do it without your blessing.

>
> 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”.

My memory must be going. I don’t recall seeing any -1 votes on any commits. That is the only thing that counts.


>
>> 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).

OK. Newcomers are free to work on whatever they want, whether it is fixing new bugs, refactoring code, creating new components. Whatever. And that doesn’t apply to just Commons Math but pretty much every project at the ASF. No one should have to tell you that that is allowed.  As you have said a million times, you are currently the only one committing to CM so it is only going to be pretty much you who blocks commits.


>
>>>
>>>> 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.

What concerned people. No one ever created an incubator proposal to discuss. If you had I would have pointed out the exact same thing.


>
>> 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…

Logging is a limited scope?  What are you smoking and where can I get some.

You go to the incubator so that you have an lower bar for giving commit rights to people who are interested so you can build a community.

Ralph
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Dennis E. Hamilton
Side questions, below

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 08:41
> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?
[ ... ]
> OK. Newcomers are free to work on whatever they want, whether it is
> fixing new bugs, refactoring code, creating new components. Whatever.
> And that doesn’t apply to just Commons Math but pretty much every
> project at the ASF. No one should have to tell you that that is allowed.
> As you have said a million times, you are currently the only one
> committing to CM so it is only going to be pretty much you who blocks
> commits.
>
[ ... ]
> You go to the incubator so that you have an lower bar for giving commit
> rights to people who are interested so you can build a community.
>
> Ralph
[orcmid]
 
 1. My understanding is that any ASF committer has commit rights to Commons.  That is one case for a low barrier to entry. Of course, any committer will want to learn the way-of-working at Commons and any interesting subprojects, but commit rights is not itself an issue in this case, yes?
    Has that changed?

 2. I am not clear about the idea of a low-barrier to entry as a committer in an incubator versus here at Commons.  Although a common practice is to invite contributors to be committers and PPMC members at the same time, and there is emphasis on growing community, this need not be particularly different at a Top Level Project.  (Commons has the rather unique characteristic of many loosely-coupled subcomponents and I can't speak to how that figures in governance.)
    What is the thinking that it would be easier to grow in the incubator?  Visibility?  Focus?

 - Dennis


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Ralph Goers

> On Aug 3, 2016, at 9:55 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Side questions, below
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 08:41
>> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?
> [ ... ]
>> OK. Newcomers are free to work on whatever they want, whether it is
>> fixing new bugs, refactoring code, creating new components. Whatever.
>> And that doesn’t apply to just Commons Math but pretty much every
>> project at the ASF. No one should have to tell you that that is allowed.
>> As you have said a million times, you are currently the only one
>> committing to CM so it is only going to be pretty much you who blocks
>> commits.
>>
> [ ... ]
>> You go to the incubator so that you have an lower bar for giving commit
>> rights to people who are interested so you can build a community.
>>
>> Ralph
> [orcmid]
>
> 1. My understanding is that any ASF committer has commit rights to Commons.  That is one case for a low barrier to entry. Of course, any committer will want to learn the way-of-working at Commons and any interesting subprojects, but commit rights is not itself an issue in this case, yes?
>    Has that changed?

That has not changed, but I am of the impression that the folks expressing interest in Commons Math don’t have commit rights to any ASF project.


>
> 2. I am not clear about the idea of a low-barrier to entry as a committer in an incubator versus here at Commons.  Although a common practice is to invite contributors to be committers and PPMC members at the same time, and there is emphasis on growing community, this need not be particularly different at a Top Level Project.  (Commons has the rather unique characteristic of many loosely-coupled subcomponents and I can't speak to how that figures in governance.)
>    What is the thinking that it would be easier to grow in the incubator?  Visibility?  Focus?

If you have someone who is a Commons Math user and isn’t otherwise involved in the ASF who would like to be a committer it would be far easier for them to do that in the incubator than in Commons. The PPMC is free to set the bar as low or as hight as they want while the Commons PMC may want to see more of a history then the PPMC would.

Ralph



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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Dennis E. Hamilton


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 11:30
> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>;
> [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?
>
>
> > On Aug 3, 2016, at 9:55 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Side questions, below
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 08:41
> >> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
> >> Subject: Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?
> > [ ... ]
> >> OK. Newcomers are free to work on whatever they want, whether it is
> >> fixing new bugs, refactoring code, creating new components. Whatever.
> >> And that doesn’t apply to just Commons Math but pretty much every
> >> project at the ASF. No one should have to tell you that that is
> allowed.
> >> As you have said a million times, you are currently the only one
> >> committing to CM so it is only going to be pretty much you who blocks
> >> commits.
> >>
> > [ ... ]
> >> You go to the incubator so that you have an lower bar for giving
> commit
> >> rights to people who are interested so you can build a community.
> >>
> >> Ralph
> > [orcmid]
> >
> > 1. My understanding is that any ASF committer has commit rights to
> Commons.  That is one case for a low barrier to entry. Of course, any
> committer will want to learn the way-of-working at Commons and any
> interesting subprojects, but commit rights is not itself an issue in
> this case, yes?
> >    Has that changed?
>
> That has not changed, but I am of the impression that the folks
> expressing interest in Commons Math don’t have commit rights to any ASF
> project.
>
>
> >
> > 2. I am not clear about the idea of a low-barrier to entry as a
> committer in an incubator versus here at Commons.  Although a common
> practice is to invite contributors to be committers and PPMC members at
> the same time, and there is emphasis on growing community, this need not
> be particularly different at a Top Level Project.  (Commons has the
> rather unique characteristic of many loosely-coupled subcomponents and I
> can't speak to how that figures in governance.)
> >    What is the thinking that it would be easier to grow in the
> incubator?  Visibility?  Focus?
>
> If you have someone who is a Commons Math user and isn’t otherwise
> involved in the ASF who would like to be a committer it would be far
> easier for them to do that in the incubator than in Commons. The PPMC is
> free to set the bar as low or as hight as they want while the Commons
> PMC may want to see more of a history then the PPMC would.
[orcmid]

It's not clear to me whether that is actually true.  I think it will vary.  It might be easier because of the specificity of the incubating project's scope and focus.  But, once an ASF committer, always an ASF committer, whether first invited to a podling or to a top-level-project.  That does not make one a committer on a particular project (other than Commons and, perhaps still, Incubator, for the PPMC avenue), so there is still a matter of merit and gaining karma elsewhere.  I think that, culturally, this is observed by Members too, even though there might not be any mechanical barrier.

Is that accurate?

I agree there is the matter of who is interested in particular Commons subprojects, including under Math, where there is specialized domain knowledge involved.

>
> Ralph
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Dave Fisher
In reply to this post by Gilles Sadowski
Gilles,

A suggestion from the peanut gallery. Look into the offered contributions and grow the community should these prove merit. Avoiding these contributions assures that you are the one who actually wants CM to be dormant..

If POI had not done this over the years the project would be dormant. Instead the active group other than Nick turns over every 3 to 5 years.

Apache requires a community. Get it, grow it.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 3, 2016, at 8:16 AM, Gilles <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 07:09:50 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> On Aug 3, 2016, at 3:46 AM, Gilles <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 23:59:23 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 2, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Gilles <[hidden email]> 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


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Artem Barger
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> > 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).
>
> OK. Newcomers are free to work on whatever they want, whether it is fixing
> new bugs, refactoring code, creating new components. Whatever. And that
> doesn’t apply to just Commons Math but pretty much every project at the
> ASF. No one should have to tell you that that is allowed.  As you have said
> a million times, you are currently the only one committing to CM so it is
> only going to be pretty much you who blocks commits.
>

​That being said, I'm trying to find my way on the CM project, proposed
several PR, opened a couple of issues in JIRA, however nothing seems to
happen with it, here I'm asking the question about the productivity and
actual need to continue and contribute my work to the project. I'd say this
is pretty weird situation where one would start contributing to other
common project to eventually be able to contribute to CM.​


Best regards,
                      Artem Barger.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Artem Barger
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> > 1. My understanding is that any ASF committer has commit rights to
> Commons.  That is one case for a low barrier to entry. Of course, any
> committer will want to learn the way-of-working at Commons and any
> interesting subprojects, but commit rights is not itself an issue in this
> case, yes?
> >    Has that changed?
>
> That has not changed, but I am of the impression that the folks expressing
> interest in Commons Math don’t have commit rights to any ASF project.


​Well, I'm not speak about commit rights, let's start from the point where
PR and JIRA reports got reviewed and accepted/rejected/commented. My three
PRs has been there for couple of months, but nothing effectively has happen
since when. And this is why I've initiated this thread to try to get clear
picture of where things are currently standing and understand whenever I
should continue ti investing my time proposing changes and improvements
here or shall I just skip and try something else. ​


Best regards,
                      Artem Barger.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Ralph Goers

> On Aug 3, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Artem Barger <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>>> 1. My understanding is that any ASF committer has commit rights to
>> Commons.  That is one case for a low barrier to entry. Of course, any
>> committer will want to learn the way-of-working at Commons and any
>> interesting subprojects, but commit rights is not itself an issue in this
>> case, yes?
>>>   Has that changed?
>>
>> That has not changed, but I am of the impression that the folks expressing
>> interest in Commons Math don’t have commit rights to any ASF project.
>
>
> ​Well, I'm not speak about commit rights, let's start from the point where
> PR and JIRA reports got reviewed and accepted/rejected/commented. My three
> PRs has been there for couple of months, but nothing effectively has happen
> since when. And this is why I've initiated this thread to try to get clear
> picture of where things are currently standing and understand whenever I
> should continue ti investing my time proposing changes and improvements
> here or shall I just skip and try something else. ​
>

So you are saying that the real problem is that no one involved with Commons Math is acting on the work you are doing. In other projects PRs don’t always get acted upon immediately, but 3 months is a bit long.  Pinging on the list to get someone to apply them is always a good idea.

Ralph

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Artem Barger
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> So you are saying that the real problem is that no one involved with
> Commons Math is acting on the work you are doing. In other projects PRs
> don’t always get acted upon immediately, but 3 months is a bit long.
> Pinging on the list to get someone to apply them is always a good idea.


All I'm saying this is one of the problems within CM, ​which IMO only a
symptom for more acute problem of missing community. Also as you can see in
ML archive I've tried several times to rise discussion around work I'm
doing and also asked for PR review.
And to be precise, right now the someone to apply is Gilles only, as far as
I'm getting situation correctly.


Best regards,
                      Artem Barger.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

Ralph Goers

> On Aug 4, 2016, at 6:39 AM, Artem Barger <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> So you are saying that the real problem is that no one involved with
>> Commons Math is acting on the work you are doing. In other projects PRs
>> don’t always get acted upon immediately, but 3 months is a bit long.
>> Pinging on the list to get someone to apply them is always a good idea.
>
>
> All I'm saying this is one of the problems within CM, ​which IMO only a
> symptom for more acute problem of missing community. Also as you can see in
> ML archive I've tried several times to rise discussion around work I'm
> doing and also asked for PR review.
> And to be precise, right now the someone to apply is Gilles only, as far as
> I'm getting situation correctly.

Any Commons committer can apply the patch. But to be honest, unless the patch is somewhat obvious or is in a part of the code Gilles isn’t familiar with, I would expect most everyone would wait for Gilles blessing.

Ralph

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

12