[VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

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

[VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

James Carman
Since it has been suggested that the previously passing vote should be
voided, I propose we vote again to move Commons Math to a TLP:

+1 - Yes, move Commons Math to a TLP
-1 - No, do not move Commons Math to a TLP

The vote will remain open for 72 hours.

Thank you,

James Carman
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

James Carman
Here's my +1 (binding).

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:47 PM James Carman <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Since it has been suggested that the previously passing vote should be
> voided, I propose we vote again to move Commons Math to a TLP:
>
> +1 - Yes, move Commons Math to a TLP
> -1 - No, do not move Commons Math to a TLP
>
> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>
> Thank you,
>
> James Carman
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

Ralph Goers
In reply to this post by James Carman
-1 (binding)

At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC.

Ralph

> On Jun 10, 2016, at 8:47 PM, James Carman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Since it has been suggested that the previously passing vote should be
> voided, I propose we vote again to move Commons Math to a TLP:
>
> +1 - Yes, move Commons Math to a TLP
> -1 - No, do not move Commons Math to a TLP
>
> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>
> Thank you,
>
> James Carman



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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

James Carman
We would take math through the incubator in order to build community around
it first. If we fail to do so, then we can decide its fate at that time. We
haven't done a good job attracting new people to math here at all. It has
always been maintained primarily by a select few.

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:36 AM Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> -1 (binding)
>
> At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Jun 10, 2016, at 8:47 PM, James Carman <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Since it has been suggested that the previously passing vote should be
> > voided, I propose we vote again to move Commons Math to a TLP:
> >
> > +1 - Yes, move Commons Math to a TLP
> > -1 - No, do not move Commons Math to a TLP
> >
> > The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > James Carman
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

jochen-2
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
+1 (I think, we could have that: Gilles, myself, and I am certain,
that a third person would step forward.

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> -1 (binding)
>
> At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC.

Jochen

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

Rob Tompkins
I'm willing to help, but I'm not sure that I have voting privileges here since I don't have commit rights.

-Rob

> On Jun 12, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> +1 (I think, we could have that: Gilles, myself, and I am certain,
> that a third person would step forward.
>
>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> -1 (binding)
>>
>> At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC.
>
> Jochen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

Niall Pemberton
In reply to this post by James Carman
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:39 AM, James Carman <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> We would take math through the incubator in order to build community around
> it first. If we fail to do so, then we can decide its fate at that time. We
> haven't done a good job attracting new people to math here at all. It has
> always been maintained primarily by a select few.
>

It made sense to me when there were 6 committers working on Math, but I
think given the exodus of most of those people to hipparchus then it would
be better to wait a while for the dust to settle to see what happens with
Math.

I also don't think the incubator is a good place for starting a community
from scratch (i.e. one or two man projects) - if you have a nucleus of at
least a few people, then it has much better chance of success.

So for me, I'm -1 unless there are enough Mathematicians who want to work
on the code to give it a chance as an incubator project.

Niall


>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:36 AM Ralph Goers <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > -1 (binding)
> >
> > At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > > On Jun 10, 2016, at 8:47 PM, James Carman <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Since it has been suggested that the previously passing vote should be
> > > voided, I propose we vote again to move Commons Math to a TLP:
> > >
> > > +1 - Yes, move Commons Math to a TLP
> > > -1 - No, do not move Commons Math to a TLP
> > >
> > > The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > James Carman
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

Gilles Sadowski
In reply to this post by Rob Tompkins
Hi.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 14:23:02 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
> I'm willing to help, but I'm not sure that I have voting privileges
> here since I don't have commit rights.

Your vote expresses what direction you'd like the project to take.

Do not hesitate to ask any questions that would help you make your
mind.

Your opinion is all the more important that the evolution of the
codebase seems to be blocked by people who expressly stated their
non-interest in Commons Math, and who factually did not contribute
to it for as long as I've been here.


Best regards,
Gilles

> -Rob
>
>> On Jun 12, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> +1 (I think, we could have that: Gilles, myself, and I am certain,
>> that a third person would step forward.
>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Ralph Goers
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> -1 (binding)
>>>
>>> At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC.
>>
>> Jochen


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

Ralph Goers
In reply to this post by Rob Tompkins
If this moves to Incubator you would become part of the Podling PMC and get a write to vote and get commit rights.  That is one of the advantages of moving this to the incubator.

Ralph

> On Jun 12, 2016, at 11:23 AM, Rob Tompkins <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm willing to help, but I'm not sure that I have voting privileges here since I don't have commit rights.
>
> -Rob
>
>> On Jun 12, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> +1 (I think, we could have that: Gilles, myself, and I am certain,
>> that a third person would step forward.
>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> -1 (binding)
>>>
>>> At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC.
>>
>> Jochen
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

Dennis E. Hamilton
In reply to this post by Niall Pemberton
-1 (non-binding)

Reason for objection:

 I think the framing of this vote is confusing.  

 1. There appears to be less ability to go to TLP than there was at the time the previous motion passed.

 2. The discussion (but not the [VOTE]) speaks of going to TLP via the incubator.  It has to be one or the other.  Propose a podling to Incubator or propose a TLP to the Board.  There is no assurance that a podling will graduate and it doesn't fit to make that a condition.  One could raise the special circumstances at general-incubator, but I think that works best with something specific (but malleable) in hand.

 3. The Incubator is reluctant to start podlings from scratch, as Niall observes.

 4. It seems to me that the best first-step on whether incubation is feasible is to do the work to create an incubation proposal.  This will require certain key factors to be addressed.  Not the least is how the code base will be imported and, because it is from an Apache Project, how it will be left behind too.  That definition can start here and then be refined on the general-incubator list where one will need to find a champion (perhaps), mentors, and a sufficient body of initial committers.  It is important for those who would form the initial core for a podling to learn enough about how incubation works.

 - Dennis

Disclosure:

 I have no idea how this might go.  I am not a Commons Math subject-matter expert, even though computational mathematics has some appeal for me.  I still have my bound "Collect Algorithms from ACM, Volume 1: Algorithms 1-220."  I did not hold onto the microfiche of later algorithms that were published in conjunction with the ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS). The latest (Algorithm 959) is interesting although I have no idea where to find the code and am dismayed that it is a library under the GPL.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 11:56
> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:39 AM, James Carman
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > We would take math through the incubator in order to build community
> around
> > it first. If we fail to do so, then we can decide its fate at that
> time. We
> > haven't done a good job attracting new people to math here at all. It
> has
> > always been maintained primarily by a select few.
> >
>
> It made sense to me when there were 6 committers working on Math, but I
> think given the exodus of most of those people to hipparchus then it
> would
> be better to wait a while for the dust to settle to see what happens
> with
> Math.
>
> I also don't think the incubator is a good place for starting a
> community
> from scratch (i.e. one or two man projects) - if you have a nucleus of
> at
> least a few people, then it has much better chance of success.
>
> So for me, I'm -1 unless there are enough Mathematicians who want to
> work
> on the code to give it a chance as an incubator project.
>
> Niall
>
>
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:36 AM Ralph Goers
> <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > -1 (binding)
> > >
> > > At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC.
> > >
> > > Ralph
> > >
> > > > On Jun 10, 2016, at 8:47 PM, James Carman
> <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Since it has been suggested that the previously passing vote
> should be
> > > > voided, I propose we vote again to move Commons Math to a TLP:
> > > >
> > > > +1 - Yes, move Commons Math to a TLP
> > > > -1 - No, do not move Commons Math to a TLP
> > > >
> > > > The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > >
> > > > James Carman
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > > 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: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

Gilles Sadowski
On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 14:33:58 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> -1 (non-binding)
>
> Reason for objection:
>
>  I think the framing of this vote is confusing.
>
>  1. There appears to be less ability to go to TLP than there was at
> the time the previous motion passed.
>
>  2. The discussion (but not the [VOTE]) speaks of going to TLP via
> the incubator.  It has to be one or the other.  Propose a podling to
> Incubator or propose a TLP to the Board.  There is no assurance that
> a
> podling will graduate and it doesn't fit to make that a condition.
> One could raise the special circumstances at general-incubator, but I
> think that works best with something specific (but malleable) in
> hand.
>
>  3. The Incubator is reluctant to start podlings from scratch, as
> Niall observes.

Could you please expand on how 3 Commons PMC members and 3 would-be
contributors are assimilated to "scratch"?

Thanks,
Gilles

>  4. It seems to me that the best first-step on whether incubation is
> feasible is to do the work to create an incubation proposal.  This
> will require certain key factors to be addressed.  Not the least is
> how the code base will be imported and, because it is from an Apache
> Project, how it will be left behind too.  That definition can start
> here and then be refined on the general-incubator list where one will
> need to find a champion (perhaps), mentors, and a sufficient body of
> initial committers.  It is important for those who would form the
> initial core for a podling to learn enough about how incubation
> works.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> Disclosure:
>
>  I have no idea how this might go.  I am not a Commons Math
> subject-matter expert, even though computational mathematics has some
> appeal for me.  I still have my bound "Collect Algorithms from ACM,
> Volume 1: Algorithms 1-220."  I did not hold onto the microfiche of
> later algorithms that were published in conjunction with the ACM
> Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS). The latest (Algorithm
> 959) is interesting although I have no idea where to find the code
> and
> am dismayed that it is a library under the GPL.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 11:56
>> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:39 AM, James Carman
>> <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > We would take math through the incubator in order to build
>> community
>> around
>> > it first. If we fail to do so, then we can decide its fate at that
>> time. We
>> > haven't done a good job attracting new people to math here at all.
>> It
>> has
>> > always been maintained primarily by a select few.
>> >
>>
>> It made sense to me when there were 6 committers working on Math,
>> but I
>> think given the exodus of most of those people to hipparchus then it
>> would
>> be better to wait a while for the dust to settle to see what happens
>> with
>> Math.
>>
>> I also don't think the incubator is a good place for starting a
>> community
>> from scratch (i.e. one or two man projects) - if you have a nucleus
>> of
>> at
>> least a few people, then it has much better chance of success.
>>
>> So for me, I'm -1 unless there are enough Mathematicians who want to
>> work
>> on the code to give it a chance as an incubator project.
>>
>> Niall
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:36 AM Ralph Goers
>> <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > -1 (binding)
>> > >
>> > > At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC.
>> > >
>> > > Ralph
>> > >
>> > > > On Jun 10, 2016, at 8:47 PM, James Carman
>> <[hidden email]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Since it has been suggested that the previously passing vote
>> should be
>> > > > voided, I propose we vote again to move Commons Math to a TLP:
>> > > >
>> > > > +1 - Yes, move Commons Math to a TLP
>> > > > -1 - No, do not move Commons Math to a TLP
>> > > >
>> > > > The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thank you,
>> > > >
>> > > > James Carman
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> > > 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: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

James Carman
In reply to this post by Dennis E. Hamilton
You bring up good points (aside from the "scratch" part maybe). I called
for a VOTE again because it was suggested that the previous vote should be
voided.

I'm open to suggestions. I'm just trying to keep this thing from dying and
I figured the Incubator could help us. We haven't done a great job in
building a healthy community around Math in Commons this far, so I'm
looking for alternatives. If it stays here, it is in all likelihood dead.
The one core person we have left has been shot down on almost everything he
has tried to do it seems.

I don't really have any dog in this race. I don't know any of these people
personally (I did meet Phil at ACNA last year and really enjoyed that) ,
but I do feel like we really haven't given Gilles a very fair time here and
in the spirit of a "do-acracy", I felt compelled to help, since he really
is all that is left. I have always felt like Math deserved its own TLP,
anyway, and we voted at one point to go there.

At this point, if the PMC really feels like leaving well enough alone with
Math, I'm fine with that and we can cancel this vote. I do feel, however,
that this PMC/Community is "broken" (for lack of a better term) and I have
felt that way for quite some time. I haven't felt compelled to contribute
code (only oversight) to this project for a long time. Obviously with
recent events, something is wrong and we need to come to grips with what
that is. I know others share some of my feelings, but I'll let them share
should they choose to do so.

I'll stop rambling. I'm sure this is enough to ruffle some feathers.

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 5:34 PM Dennis E. Hamilton <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> -1 (non-binding)
>
> Reason for objection:
>
>  I think the framing of this vote is confusing.
>
>  1. There appears to be less ability to go to TLP than there was at the
> time the previous motion passed.
>
>  2. The discussion (but not the [VOTE]) speaks of going to TLP via the
> incubator.  It has to be one or the other.  Propose a podling to Incubator
> or propose a TLP to the Board.  There is no assurance that a podling will
> graduate and it doesn't fit to make that a condition.  One could raise the
> special circumstances at general-incubator, but I think that works best
> with something specific (but malleable) in hand.
>
>  3. The Incubator is reluctant to start podlings from scratch, as Niall
> observes.
>
>  4. It seems to me that the best first-step on whether incubation is
> feasible is to do the work to create an incubation proposal.  This will
> require certain key factors to be addressed.  Not the least is how the code
> base will be imported and, because it is from an Apache Project, how it
> will be left behind too.  That definition can start here and then be
> refined on the general-incubator list where one will need to find a
> champion (perhaps), mentors, and a sufficient body of initial committers.
> It is important for those who would form the initial core for a podling to
> learn enough about how incubation works.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> Disclosure:
>
>  I have no idea how this might go.  I am not a Commons Math subject-matter
> expert, even though computational mathematics has some appeal for me.  I
> still have my bound "Collect Algorithms from ACM, Volume 1: Algorithms
> 1-220."  I did not hold onto the microfiche of later algorithms that were
> published in conjunction with the ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software
> (TOMS). The latest (Algorithm 959) is interesting although I have no idea
> where to find the code and am dismayed that it is a library under the GPL.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 11:56
> > To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:39 AM, James Carman
> > <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We would take math through the incubator in order to build community
> > around
> > > it first. If we fail to do so, then we can decide its fate at that
> > time. We
> > > haven't done a good job attracting new people to math here at all. It
> > has
> > > always been maintained primarily by a select few.
> > >
> >
> > It made sense to me when there were 6 committers working on Math, but I
> > think given the exodus of most of those people to hipparchus then it
> > would
> > be better to wait a while for the dust to settle to see what happens
> > with
> > Math.
> >
> > I also don't think the incubator is a good place for starting a
> > community
> > from scratch (i.e. one or two man projects) - if you have a nucleus of
> > at
> > least a few people, then it has much better chance of success.
> >
> > So for me, I'm -1 unless there are enough Mathematicians who want to
> > work
> > on the code to give it a chance as an incubator project.
> >
> > Niall
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:36 AM Ralph Goers
> > <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > -1 (binding)
> > > >
> > > > At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC.
> > > >
> > > > Ralph
> > > >
> > > > > On Jun 10, 2016, at 8:47 PM, James Carman
> > <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Since it has been suggested that the previously passing vote
> > should be
> > > > > voided, I propose we vote again to move Commons Math to a TLP:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 - Yes, move Commons Math to a TLP
> > > > > -1 - No, do not move Commons Math to a TLP
> > > > >
> > > > > The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you,
> > > > >
> > > > > James Carman
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -
> > > > 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: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

Niall Pemberton
In reply to this post by Gilles Sadowski
On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Gilles <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 14:33:58 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>
>> -1 (non-binding)
>>
>> Reason for objection:
>>
>>  I think the framing of this vote is confusing.
>>
>>  1. There appears to be less ability to go to TLP than there was at
>> the time the previous motion passed.
>>
>>  2. The discussion (but not the [VOTE]) speaks of going to TLP via
>> the incubator.  It has to be one or the other.  Propose a podling to
>> Incubator or propose a TLP to the Board.  There is no assurance that a
>> podling will graduate and it doesn't fit to make that a condition.
>> One could raise the special circumstances at general-incubator, but I
>> think that works best with something specific (but malleable) in hand.
>>
>>  3. The Incubator is reluctant to start podlings from scratch, as
>> Niall observes.
>>
>
> Could you please expand on how 3 Commons PMC members and 3 would-be
> contributors are assimilated to "scratch"?
>

It would be good if all those wanting to be part of a Math TLP could
indicate that here and cast a vote for a Math TLP. Including yourself
Gilles, since so far I don't remember seeing whether you that you were in
favour of this.

Niall



>
> Thanks,
> Gilles
>
>
>  4. It seems to me that the best first-step on whether incubation is
>> feasible is to do the work to create an incubation proposal.  This
>> will require certain key factors to be addressed.  Not the least is
>> how the code base will be imported and, because it is from an Apache
>> Project, how it will be left behind too.  That definition can start
>> here and then be refined on the general-incubator list where one will
>> need to find a champion (perhaps), mentors, and a sufficient body of
>> initial committers.  It is important for those who would form the
>> initial core for a podling to learn enough about how incubation works.
>>
>>  - Dennis
>>
>> Disclosure:
>>
>>  I have no idea how this might go.  I am not a Commons Math
>> subject-matter expert, even though computational mathematics has some
>> appeal for me.  I still have my bound "Collect Algorithms from ACM,
>> Volume 1: Algorithms 1-220."  I did not hold onto the microfiche of
>> later algorithms that were published in conjunction with the ACM
>> Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS). The latest (Algorithm
>> 959) is interesting although I have no idea where to find the code and
>> am dismayed that it is a library under the GPL.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 11:56
>>> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:39 AM, James Carman
>>> <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > We would take math through the incubator in order to build community
>>> around
>>> > it first. If we fail to do so, then we can decide its fate at that
>>> time. We
>>> > haven't done a good job attracting new people to math here at all. It
>>> has
>>> > always been maintained primarily by a select few.
>>> >
>>>
>>> It made sense to me when there were 6 committers working on Math, but I
>>> think given the exodus of most of those people to hipparchus then it
>>> would
>>> be better to wait a while for the dust to settle to see what happens
>>> with
>>> Math.
>>>
>>> I also don't think the incubator is a good place for starting a
>>> community
>>> from scratch (i.e. one or two man projects) - if you have a nucleus of
>>> at
>>> least a few people, then it has much better chance of success.
>>>
>>> So for me, I'm -1 unless there are enough Mathematicians who want to
>>> work
>>> on the code to give it a chance as an incubator project.
>>>
>>> Niall
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:36 AM Ralph Goers
>>> <[hidden email]>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > -1 (binding)
>>> > >
>>> > > At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC.
>>> > >
>>> > > Ralph
>>> > >
>>> > > > On Jun 10, 2016, at 8:47 PM, James Carman
>>> <[hidden email]>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Since it has been suggested that the previously passing vote
>>> should be
>>> > > > voided, I propose we vote again to move Commons Math to a TLP:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > +1 - Yes, move Commons Math to a TLP
>>> > > > -1 - No, do not move Commons Math to a TLP
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Thank you,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > James Carman
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> > > 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: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

Benson Margulies
Procedurally speaking, I see no reason for this community to hold any
vote at all.

If a small group of people, including a foundation member or two,
wants to ask the board to establish a TLP, they may, by writing a
coherent proposal to the board explaining the situation. The board
might ask for a filled-in incubator proposal as input to their
deliberations.

Or, of they wish to go into the incubator to try to build a viable
community that will get TLP status in time, they can write an
incubator proposal.

The board or IPMC might wonder about the state of affairs here when
they receive one of these proposals, but it's hardly a matter that
calls for a formal vote here.




On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Niall Pemberton
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Gilles <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 14:33:58 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>> -1 (non-binding)
>>>
>>> Reason for objection:
>>>
>>>  I think the framing of this vote is confusing.
>>>
>>>  1. There appears to be less ability to go to TLP than there was at
>>> the time the previous motion passed.
>>>
>>>  2. The discussion (but not the [VOTE]) speaks of going to TLP via
>>> the incubator.  It has to be one or the other.  Propose a podling to
>>> Incubator or propose a TLP to the Board.  There is no assurance that a
>>> podling will graduate and it doesn't fit to make that a condition.
>>> One could raise the special circumstances at general-incubator, but I
>>> think that works best with something specific (but malleable) in hand.
>>>
>>>  3. The Incubator is reluctant to start podlings from scratch, as
>>> Niall observes.
>>>
>>
>> Could you please expand on how 3 Commons PMC members and 3 would-be
>> contributors are assimilated to "scratch"?
>>
>
> It would be good if all those wanting to be part of a Math TLP could
> indicate that here and cast a vote for a Math TLP. Including yourself
> Gilles, since so far I don't remember seeing whether you that you were in
> favour of this.
>
> Niall
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gilles
>>
>>
>>  4. It seems to me that the best first-step on whether incubation is
>>> feasible is to do the work to create an incubation proposal.  This
>>> will require certain key factors to be addressed.  Not the least is
>>> how the code base will be imported and, because it is from an Apache
>>> Project, how it will be left behind too.  That definition can start
>>> here and then be refined on the general-incubator list where one will
>>> need to find a champion (perhaps), mentors, and a sufficient body of
>>> initial committers.  It is important for those who would form the
>>> initial core for a podling to learn enough about how incubation works.
>>>
>>>  - Dennis
>>>
>>> Disclosure:
>>>
>>>  I have no idea how this might go.  I am not a Commons Math
>>> subject-matter expert, even though computational mathematics has some
>>> appeal for me.  I still have my bound "Collect Algorithms from ACM,
>>> Volume 1: Algorithms 1-220."  I did not hold onto the microfiche of
>>> later algorithms that were published in conjunction with the ACM
>>> Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS). The latest (Algorithm
>>> 959) is interesting although I have no idea where to find the code and
>>> am dismayed that it is a library under the GPL.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 11:56
>>>> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:39 AM, James Carman
>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > We would take math through the incubator in order to build community
>>>> around
>>>> > it first. If we fail to do so, then we can decide its fate at that
>>>> time. We
>>>> > haven't done a good job attracting new people to math here at all. It
>>>> has
>>>> > always been maintained primarily by a select few.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> It made sense to me when there were 6 committers working on Math, but I
>>>> think given the exodus of most of those people to hipparchus then it
>>>> would
>>>> be better to wait a while for the dust to settle to see what happens
>>>> with
>>>> Math.
>>>>
>>>> I also don't think the incubator is a good place for starting a
>>>> community
>>>> from scratch (i.e. one or two man projects) - if you have a nucleus of
>>>> at
>>>> least a few people, then it has much better chance of success.
>>>>
>>>> So for me, I'm -1 unless there are enough Mathematicians who want to
>>>> work
>>>> on the code to give it a chance as an incubator project.
>>>>
>>>> Niall
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:36 AM Ralph Goers
>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > -1 (binding)
>>>> > >
>>>> > > At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Ralph
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > On Jun 10, 2016, at 8:47 PM, James Carman
>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Since it has been suggested that the previously passing vote
>>>> should be
>>>> > > > voided, I propose we vote again to move Commons Math to a TLP:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > +1 - Yes, move Commons Math to a TLP
>>>> > > > -1 - No, do not move Commons Math to a TLP
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Thank you,
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > James Carman
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -
>>>> > > 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]
>>
>>

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

Niall Pemberton
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Procedurally speaking, I see no reason for this community to hold any
> vote at all.
>
> If a small group of people, including a foundation member or two,
> wants to ask the board to establish a TLP, they may, by writing a
> coherent proposal to the board explaining the situation. The board
> might ask for a filled-in incubator proposal as input to their
> deliberations.
>
> Or, of they wish to go into the incubator to try to build a viable
> community that will get TLP status in time, they can write an
> incubator proposal.
>
> The board or IPMC might wonder about the state of affairs here when
> they receive one of these proposals, but it's hardly a matter that
> calls for a formal vote here.
>

Yes, I agree, but the discussion to gather those people together needs to
take place somewhere and since here its been framed as a vote, then it
would be good if those people who want to participate in a TLP effort would
do so in this thread.

Niall


On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Niall Pemberton
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Gilles <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 14:33:58 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>
>>> -1 (non-binding)
>>>
>>> Reason for objection:
>>>
>>>  I think the framing of this vote is confusing.
>>>
>>>  1. There appears to be less ability to go to TLP than there was at
>>> the time the previous motion passed.
>>>
>>>  2. The discussion (but not the [VOTE]) speaks of going to TLP via
>>> the incubator.  It has to be one or the other.  Propose a podling to
>>> Incubator or propose a TLP to the Board.  There is no assurance that a
>>> podling will graduate and it doesn't fit to make that a condition.
>>> One could raise the special circumstances at general-incubator, but I
>>> think that works best with something specific (but malleable) in hand.
>>>
>>>  3. The Incubator is reluctant to start podlings from scratch, as
>>> Niall observes.
>>>
>>
>> Could you please expand on how 3 Commons PMC members and 3 would-be
>> contributors are assimilated to "scratch"?
>>
>
> It would be good if all those wanting to be part of a Math TLP could
> indicate that here and cast a vote for a Math TLP. Including yourself
> Gilles, since so far I don't remember seeing whether you that you were in
> favour of this.
>
> Niall
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gilles
>>
>>
>>  4. It seems to me that the best first-step on whether incubation is
>>> feasible is to do the work to create an incubation proposal.  This
>>> will require certain key factors to be addressed.  Not the least is
>>> how the code base will be imported and, because it is from an Apache
>>> Project, how it will be left behind too.  That definition can start
>>> here and then be refined on the general-incubator list where one will
>>> need to find a champion (perhaps), mentors, and a sufficient body of
>>> initial committers.  It is important for those who would form the
>>> initial core for a podling to learn enough about how incubation works.
>>>
>>>  - Dennis
>>>
>>> Disclosure:
>>>
>>>  I have no idea how this might go.  I am not a Commons Math
>>> subject-matter expert, even though computational mathematics has some
>>> appeal for me.  I still have my bound "Collect Algorithms from ACM,
>>> Volume 1: Algorithms 1-220."  I did not hold onto the microfiche of
>>> later algorithms that were published in conjunction with the ACM
>>> Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS). The latest (Algorithm
>>> 959) is interesting although I have no idea where to find the code and
>>> am dismayed that it is a library under the GPL.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 11:56
>>>> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:39 AM, James Carman
>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > We would take math through the incubator in order to build community
>>>> around
>>>> > it first. If we fail to do so, then we can decide its fate at that
>>>> time. We
>>>> > haven't done a good job attracting new people to math here at all. It
>>>> has
>>>> > always been maintained primarily by a select few.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> It made sense to me when there were 6 committers working on Math, but I
>>>> think given the exodus of most of those people to hipparchus then it
>>>> would
>>>> be better to wait a while for the dust to settle to see what happens
>>>> with
>>>> Math.
>>>>
>>>> I also don't think the incubator is a good place for starting a
>>>> community
>>>> from scratch (i.e. one or two man projects) - if you have a nucleus of
>>>> at
>>>> least a few people, then it has much better chance of success.
>>>>
>>>> So for me, I'm -1 unless there are enough Mathematicians who want to
>>>> work
>>>> on the code to give it a chance as an incubator project.
>>>>
>>>> Niall
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:36 AM Ralph Goers
>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > -1 (binding)
>>>> > >
>>>> > > At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Ralph
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > On Jun 10, 2016, at 8:47 PM, James Carman
>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Since it has been suggested that the previously passing vote
>>>> should be
>>>> > > > voided, I propose we vote again to move Commons Math to a TLP:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > +1 - Yes, move Commons Math to a TLP
>>>> > > > -1 - No, do not move Commons Math to a TLP
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Thank you,
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > James Carman
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>> -
>>>> > > 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]
>>
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

Rob Tompkins
With all of that said, then I'm a: +1 (binding).

-Rob

> On Jun 12, 2016, at 9:27 PM, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Procedurally speaking, I see no reason for this community to hold any
>> vote at all.
>>
>> If a small group of people, including a foundation member or two,
>> wants to ask the board to establish a TLP, they may, by writing a
>> coherent proposal to the board explaining the situation. The board
>> might ask for a filled-in incubator proposal as input to their
>> deliberations.
>>
>> Or, of they wish to go into the incubator to try to build a viable
>> community that will get TLP status in time, they can write an
>> incubator proposal.
>>
>> The board or IPMC might wonder about the state of affairs here when
>> they receive one of these proposals, but it's hardly a matter that
>> calls for a formal vote here.
>
> Yes, I agree, but the discussion to gather those people together needs to
> take place somewhere and since here its been framed as a vote, then it
> would be good if those people who want to participate in a TLP effort would
> do so in this thread.
>
> Niall
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Niall Pemberton
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Gilles <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 14:33:58 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> -1 (non-binding)
>>>>
>>>> Reason for objection:
>>>>
>>>> I think the framing of this vote is confusing.
>>>>
>>>> 1. There appears to be less ability to go to TLP than there was at
>>>> the time the previous motion passed.
>>>>
>>>> 2. The discussion (but not the [VOTE]) speaks of going to TLP via
>>>> the incubator.  It has to be one or the other.  Propose a podling to
>>>> Incubator or propose a TLP to the Board.  There is no assurance that a
>>>> podling will graduate and it doesn't fit to make that a condition.
>>>> One could raise the special circumstances at general-incubator, but I
>>>> think that works best with something specific (but malleable) in hand.
>>>>
>>>> 3. The Incubator is reluctant to start podlings from scratch, as
>>>> Niall observes.
>>>
>>> Could you please expand on how 3 Commons PMC members and 3 would-be
>>> contributors are assimilated to "scratch"?
>>
>> It would be good if all those wanting to be part of a Math TLP could
>> indicate that here and cast a vote for a Math TLP. Including yourself
>> Gilles, since so far I don't remember seeing whether you that you were in
>> favour of this.
>>
>> Niall
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gilles
>>>
>>>
>>> 4. It seems to me that the best first-step on whether incubation is
>>>> feasible is to do the work to create an incubation proposal.  This
>>>> will require certain key factors to be addressed.  Not the least is
>>>> how the code base will be imported and, because it is from an Apache
>>>> Project, how it will be left behind too.  That definition can start
>>>> here and then be refined on the general-incubator list where one will
>>>> need to find a champion (perhaps), mentors, and a sufficient body of
>>>> initial committers.  It is important for those who would form the
>>>> initial core for a podling to learn enough about how incubation works.
>>>>
>>>> - Dennis
>>>>
>>>> Disclosure:
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea how this might go.  I am not a Commons Math
>>>> subject-matter expert, even though computational mathematics has some
>>>> appeal for me.  I still have my bound "Collect Algorithms from ACM,
>>>> Volume 1: Algorithms 1-220."  I did not hold onto the microfiche of
>>>> later algorithms that were published in conjunction with the ACM
>>>> Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS). The latest (Algorithm
>>>> 959) is interesting although I have no idea where to find the code and
>>>> am dismayed that it is a library under the GPL.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 11:56
>>>>> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:39 AM, James Carman
>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We would take math through the incubator in order to build community
>>>>> around
>>>>>> it first. If we fail to do so, then we can decide its fate at that
>>>>> time. We
>>>>>> haven't done a good job attracting new people to math here at all. It
>>>>> has
>>>>>> always been maintained primarily by a select few.
>>>>>
>>>>> It made sense to me when there were 6 committers working on Math, but I
>>>>> think given the exodus of most of those people to hipparchus then it
>>>>> would
>>>>> be better to wait a while for the dust to settle to see what happens
>>>>> with
>>>>> Math.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also don't think the incubator is a good place for starting a
>>>>> community
>>>>> from scratch (i.e. one or two man projects) - if you have a nucleus of
>>>>> at
>>>>> least a few people, then it has much better chance of success.
>>>>>
>>>>> So for me, I'm -1 unless there are enough Mathematicians who want to
>>>>> work
>>>>> on the code to give it a chance as an incubator project.
>>>>>
>>>>> Niall
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:36 AM Ralph Goers
>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -1 (binding)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 10, 2016, at 8:47 PM, James Carman
>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since it has been suggested that the previously passing vote
>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>> voided, I propose we vote again to move Commons Math to a TLP:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 - Yes, move Commons Math to a TLP
>>>>>>>> -1 - No, do not move Commons Math to a TLP
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> James Carman
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> -
>>>>>>> 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]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

Ralph Goers
Does your +1 mean you want to be part of the new PMC or just are in favor of the proposal?

I’m just having a hard time trying to understand what we are trying to accomplish.  What I would really like to see is for all the people who would like to be a part of the Math project to add their name to a list.  Perhaps an incubator proposal on the incubator wiki might be the place to collect these.  Once it has been established there are a group of people who really want to work on the project then they should decide whether they want to actually put forth the proposal to the incubator or just turn it into a TLP proposal to the board.

Ralph

> On Jun 12, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Rob Tompkins <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> With all of that said, then I'm a: +1 (binding).
>
> -Rob
>
>> On Jun 12, 2016, at 9:27 PM, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Procedurally speaking, I see no reason for this community to hold any
>>> vote at all.
>>>
>>> If a small group of people, including a foundation member or two,
>>> wants to ask the board to establish a TLP, they may, by writing a
>>> coherent proposal to the board explaining the situation. The board
>>> might ask for a filled-in incubator proposal as input to their
>>> deliberations.
>>>
>>> Or, of they wish to go into the incubator to try to build a viable
>>> community that will get TLP status in time, they can write an
>>> incubator proposal.
>>>
>>> The board or IPMC might wonder about the state of affairs here when
>>> they receive one of these proposals, but it's hardly a matter that
>>> calls for a formal vote here.
>>
>> Yes, I agree, but the discussion to gather those people together needs to
>> take place somewhere and since here its been framed as a vote, then it
>> would be good if those people who want to participate in a TLP effort would
>> do so in this thread.
>>
>> Niall
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Niall Pemberton
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Gilles <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 14:33:58 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> -1 (non-binding)
>>>>>
>>>>> Reason for objection:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the framing of this vote is confusing.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. There appears to be less ability to go to TLP than there was at
>>>>> the time the previous motion passed.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. The discussion (but not the [VOTE]) speaks of going to TLP via
>>>>> the incubator.  It has to be one or the other.  Propose a podling to
>>>>> Incubator or propose a TLP to the Board.  There is no assurance that a
>>>>> podling will graduate and it doesn't fit to make that a condition.
>>>>> One could raise the special circumstances at general-incubator, but I
>>>>> think that works best with something specific (but malleable) in hand.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. The Incubator is reluctant to start podlings from scratch, as
>>>>> Niall observes.
>>>>
>>>> Could you please expand on how 3 Commons PMC members and 3 would-be
>>>> contributors are assimilated to "scratch"?
>>>
>>> It would be good if all those wanting to be part of a Math TLP could
>>> indicate that here and cast a vote for a Math TLP. Including yourself
>>> Gilles, since so far I don't remember seeing whether you that you were in
>>> favour of this.
>>>
>>> Niall
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Gilles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 4. It seems to me that the best first-step on whether incubation is
>>>>> feasible is to do the work to create an incubation proposal.  This
>>>>> will require certain key factors to be addressed.  Not the least is
>>>>> how the code base will be imported and, because it is from an Apache
>>>>> Project, how it will be left behind too.  That definition can start
>>>>> here and then be refined on the general-incubator list where one will
>>>>> need to find a champion (perhaps), mentors, and a sufficient body of
>>>>> initial committers.  It is important for those who would form the
>>>>> initial core for a podling to learn enough about how incubation works.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Dennis
>>>>>
>>>>> Disclosure:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no idea how this might go.  I am not a Commons Math
>>>>> subject-matter expert, even though computational mathematics has some
>>>>> appeal for me.  I still have my bound "Collect Algorithms from ACM,
>>>>> Volume 1: Algorithms 1-220."  I did not hold onto the microfiche of
>>>>> later algorithms that were published in conjunction with the ACM
>>>>> Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS). The latest (Algorithm
>>>>> 959) is interesting although I have no idea where to find the code and
>>>>> am dismayed that it is a library under the GPL.
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 11:56
>>>>>> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:39 AM, James Carman
>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We would take math through the incubator in order to build community
>>>>>> around
>>>>>>> it first. If we fail to do so, then we can decide its fate at that
>>>>>> time. We
>>>>>>> haven't done a good job attracting new people to math here at all. It
>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> always been maintained primarily by a select few.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It made sense to me when there were 6 committers working on Math, but I
>>>>>> think given the exodus of most of those people to hipparchus then it
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> be better to wait a while for the dust to settle to see what happens
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> Math.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also don't think the incubator is a good place for starting a
>>>>>> community
>>>>>> from scratch (i.e. one or two man projects) - if you have a nucleus of
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> least a few people, then it has much better chance of success.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So for me, I'm -1 unless there are enough Mathematicians who want to
>>>>>> work
>>>>>> on the code to give it a chance as an incubator project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Niall
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:36 AM Ralph Goers
>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -1 (binding)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 10, 2016, at 8:47 PM, James Carman
>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since it has been suggested that the previously passing vote
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>> voided, I propose we vote again to move Commons Math to a TLP:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 - Yes, move Commons Math to a TLP
>>>>>>>>> -1 - No, do not move Commons Math to a TLP
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> James Carman
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> 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]
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

sebb-2-2
In reply to this post by Rob Tompkins
On 13 June 2016 at 03:06, Rob Tompkins <[hidden email]> wrote:
> With all of that said, then I'm a: +1 (binding).

AIUI this is a Common vote, as such only PMC member votes are
considered binding.
However you don't appear to be listed as a PMC member?

> -Rob
>
>> On Jun 12, 2016, at 9:27 PM, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Procedurally speaking, I see no reason for this community to hold any
>>> vote at all.
>>>
>>> If a small group of people, including a foundation member or two,
>>> wants to ask the board to establish a TLP, they may, by writing a
>>> coherent proposal to the board explaining the situation. The board
>>> might ask for a filled-in incubator proposal as input to their
>>> deliberations.
>>>
>>> Or, of they wish to go into the incubator to try to build a viable
>>> community that will get TLP status in time, they can write an
>>> incubator proposal.
>>>
>>> The board or IPMC might wonder about the state of affairs here when
>>> they receive one of these proposals, but it's hardly a matter that
>>> calls for a formal vote here.
>>
>> Yes, I agree, but the discussion to gather those people together needs to
>> take place somewhere and since here its been framed as a vote, then it
>> would be good if those people who want to participate in a TLP effort would
>> do so in this thread.
>>
>> Niall
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Niall Pemberton
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Gilles <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 14:33:58 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> -1 (non-binding)
>>>>>
>>>>> Reason for objection:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the framing of this vote is confusing.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. There appears to be less ability to go to TLP than there was at
>>>>> the time the previous motion passed.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. The discussion (but not the [VOTE]) speaks of going to TLP via
>>>>> the incubator.  It has to be one or the other.  Propose a podling to
>>>>> Incubator or propose a TLP to the Board.  There is no assurance that a
>>>>> podling will graduate and it doesn't fit to make that a condition.
>>>>> One could raise the special circumstances at general-incubator, but I
>>>>> think that works best with something specific (but malleable) in hand.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. The Incubator is reluctant to start podlings from scratch, as
>>>>> Niall observes.
>>>>
>>>> Could you please expand on how 3 Commons PMC members and 3 would-be
>>>> contributors are assimilated to "scratch"?
>>>
>>> It would be good if all those wanting to be part of a Math TLP could
>>> indicate that here and cast a vote for a Math TLP. Including yourself
>>> Gilles, since so far I don't remember seeing whether you that you were in
>>> favour of this.
>>>
>>> Niall
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Gilles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 4. It seems to me that the best first-step on whether incubation is
>>>>> feasible is to do the work to create an incubation proposal.  This
>>>>> will require certain key factors to be addressed.  Not the least is
>>>>> how the code base will be imported and, because it is from an Apache
>>>>> Project, how it will be left behind too.  That definition can start
>>>>> here and then be refined on the general-incubator list where one will
>>>>> need to find a champion (perhaps), mentors, and a sufficient body of
>>>>> initial committers.  It is important for those who would form the
>>>>> initial core for a podling to learn enough about how incubation works.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Dennis
>>>>>
>>>>> Disclosure:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no idea how this might go.  I am not a Commons Math
>>>>> subject-matter expert, even though computational mathematics has some
>>>>> appeal for me.  I still have my bound "Collect Algorithms from ACM,
>>>>> Volume 1: Algorithms 1-220."  I did not hold onto the microfiche of
>>>>> later algorithms that were published in conjunction with the ACM
>>>>> Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS). The latest (Algorithm
>>>>> 959) is interesting although I have no idea where to find the code and
>>>>> am dismayed that it is a library under the GPL.
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 11:56
>>>>>> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:39 AM, James Carman
>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We would take math through the incubator in order to build community
>>>>>> around
>>>>>>> it first. If we fail to do so, then we can decide its fate at that
>>>>>> time. We
>>>>>>> haven't done a good job attracting new people to math here at all. It
>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> always been maintained primarily by a select few.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It made sense to me when there were 6 committers working on Math, but I
>>>>>> think given the exodus of most of those people to hipparchus then it
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> be better to wait a while for the dust to settle to see what happens
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> Math.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also don't think the incubator is a good place for starting a
>>>>>> community
>>>>>> from scratch (i.e. one or two man projects) - if you have a nucleus of
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> least a few people, then it has much better chance of success.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So for me, I'm -1 unless there are enough Mathematicians who want to
>>>>>> work
>>>>>> on the code to give it a chance as an incubator project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Niall
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:36 AM Ralph Goers
>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -1 (binding)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jun 10, 2016, at 8:47 PM, James Carman
>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since it has been suggested that the previously passing vote
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>> voided, I propose we vote again to move Commons Math to a TLP:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 - Yes, move Commons Math to a TLP
>>>>>>>>> -1 - No, do not move Commons Math to a TLP
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> James Carman
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> 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]
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

Rob Tompkins

> On Jun 13, 2016, at 4:29 AM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 13 June 2016 at 03:06, Rob Tompkins <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> With all of that said, then I'm a: +1 (binding).
>
> AIUI this is a Common vote, as such only PMC member votes are
> considered binding.
> However you don't appear to be listed as a PMC member?

Agreed, I am not a PMC member, so you will have to pardon my naivety there with my attempt to vote. That said, I am willing to stand behind the project with Gilles in whatever stead is needed.

All the best,
-Rob

>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> On Jun 12, 2016, at 9:27 PM, Niall Pemberton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Procedurally speaking, I see no reason for this community to hold any
>>>> vote at all.
>>>>
>>>> If a small group of people, including a foundation member or two,
>>>> wants to ask the board to establish a TLP, they may, by writing a
>>>> coherent proposal to the board explaining the situation. The board
>>>> might ask for a filled-in incubator proposal as input to their
>>>> deliberations.
>>>>
>>>> Or, of they wish to go into the incubator to try to build a viable
>>>> community that will get TLP status in time, they can write an
>>>> incubator proposal.
>>>>
>>>> The board or IPMC might wonder about the state of affairs here when
>>>> they receive one of these proposals, but it's hardly a matter that
>>>> calls for a formal vote here.
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree, but the discussion to gather those people together needs to
>>> take place somewhere and since here its been framed as a vote, then it
>>> would be good if those people who want to participate in a TLP effort would
>>> do so in this thread.
>>>
>>> Niall
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Niall Pemberton
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Gilles <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 14:33:58 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -1 (non-binding)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reason for objection:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the framing of this vote is confusing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. There appears to be less ability to go to TLP than there was at
>>>>>> the time the previous motion passed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. The discussion (but not the [VOTE]) speaks of going to TLP via
>>>>>> the incubator.  It has to be one or the other.  Propose a podling to
>>>>>> Incubator or propose a TLP to the Board.  There is no assurance that a
>>>>>> podling will graduate and it doesn't fit to make that a condition.
>>>>>> One could raise the special circumstances at general-incubator, but I
>>>>>> think that works best with something specific (but malleable) in hand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. The Incubator is reluctant to start podlings from scratch, as
>>>>>> Niall observes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you please expand on how 3 Commons PMC members and 3 would-be
>>>>> contributors are assimilated to "scratch"?
>>>>
>>>> It would be good if all those wanting to be part of a Math TLP could
>>>> indicate that here and cast a vote for a Math TLP. Including yourself
>>>> Gilles, since so far I don't remember seeing whether you that you were in
>>>> favour of this.
>>>>
>>>> Niall
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Gilles
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. It seems to me that the best first-step on whether incubation is
>>>>>> feasible is to do the work to create an incubation proposal.  This
>>>>>> will require certain key factors to be addressed.  Not the least is
>>>>>> how the code base will be imported and, because it is from an Apache
>>>>>> Project, how it will be left behind too.  That definition can start
>>>>>> here and then be refined on the general-incubator list where one will
>>>>>> need to find a champion (perhaps), mentors, and a sufficient body of
>>>>>> initial committers.  It is important for those who would form the
>>>>>> initial core for a podling to learn enough about how incubation works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Dennis
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disclosure:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no idea how this might go.  I am not a Commons Math
>>>>>> subject-matter expert, even though computational mathematics has some
>>>>>> appeal for me.  I still have my bound "Collect Algorithms from ACM,
>>>>>> Volume 1: Algorithms 1-220."  I did not hold onto the microfiche of
>>>>>> later algorithms that were published in conjunction with the ACM
>>>>>> Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS). The latest (Algorithm
>>>>>> 959) is interesting although I have no idea where to find the code and
>>>>>> am dismayed that it is a library under the GPL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 11:56
>>>>>>> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:39 AM, James Carman
>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We would take math through the incubator in order to build community
>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>> it first. If we fail to do so, then we can decide its fate at that
>>>>>>> time. We
>>>>>>>> haven't done a good job attracting new people to math here at all. It
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> always been maintained primarily by a select few.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It made sense to me when there were 6 committers working on Math, but I
>>>>>>> think given the exodus of most of those people to hipparchus then it
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> be better to wait a while for the dust to settle to see what happens
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> Math.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also don't think the incubator is a good place for starting a
>>>>>>> community
>>>>>>> from scratch (i.e. one or two man projects) - if you have a nucleus of
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>> least a few people, then it has much better chance of success.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So for me, I'm -1 unless there are enough Mathematicians who want to
>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>> on the code to give it a chance as an incubator project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Niall
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:36 AM Ralph Goers
>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -1 (binding)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 10, 2016, at 8:47 PM, James Carman
>>>>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since it has been suggested that the previously passing vote
>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>> voided, I propose we vote again to move Commons Math to a TLP:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +1 - Yes, move Commons Math to a TLP
>>>>>>>>>> -1 - No, do not move Commons Math to a TLP
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> James Carman
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> 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]
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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]
>


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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...

jochen-2
In reply to this post by Ralph Goers
IMO, the primary advantagae of the incubator would be, that the
project could have its own mailing list, etc.

Thus, it would be independent from the happenings at dev@commons, etc.
Which is, (IMO) exactly, what is required right now.

Jochen


On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Ralph Goers
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> If this moves to Incubator you would become part of the Podling PMC and get a write to vote and get commit rights.  That is one of the advantages of moving this to the incubator.
>
> Ralph
>
>> On Jun 12, 2016, at 11:23 AM, Rob Tompkins <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm willing to help, but I'm not sure that I have voting privileges here since I don't have commit rights.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> On Jun 12, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 (I think, we could have that: Gilles, myself, and I am certain,
>>> that a third person would step forward.
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Ralph Goers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> -1 (binding)
>>>>
>>>> At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC.
>>>
>>> Jochen
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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]
>



--
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]

12