[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
|

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

Stian Soiland-Reyes
+1 for a move to Incubator, rather than a TLP, as Math now needs to
find its new ground and direction, and in particular grow its active
developer base.


The incubator is great for reducing the distance for moving from
contributor to committer, and for letting everyone get a say in what
direction you are moving. The role of the incubator mentors is to help
you build the community, and while it's not always fun to get reminded
about what is missing here, the process of the incubator forces the
community focus (who are we) and not just code focus (what does it
do).

Obviously you can do that straight as a TLP as well, but I think given
the fork happened, Math needs to grow more slowly back into shape, and
the Incubator should be good for that.

I agree on trying to write an Incubator proposal and start discussing
it on general@incubator.


On 13 June 2016 at 17:43, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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]
>



--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Niall Pemberton
Hi.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 01:30:20 +0100, Niall Pemberton 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.

In another thread, I indicated what was my preferred way to get
back on track after the fork announcement.

I know that I repeat myself but I am *totally* convinced that some
part of what was CM can become one or a few bona fide components.

Getting after this "low-hanging fruit" (meaning: release *early*)
can have a positive effect.
At the opposite, letting code that could be released rot until we
can fix all the issues in CM, is depressing.

And this is mostly independent of a larger-scale effort aimed at
creating a TLP.

It's a pity that the only way to make any decision about the CM
codebase, that does not amount to not deciding anything, seems
to depend on taking this code elsewhere.

Whether here at Commons, in a new TLP, or in the incubator, my
proposal would be the same: rebuild a project around the competences
available *now*.
Personally, I'll not participate in a project based on the messianic
belief that subject matter experts (a.k.a. "Mathematicians") will
suddenly figure out that they want to contribute to Commons Math.
[For better or worse, CM never worked that way.]

The question is: Why do some non-contributors try to force
contributors to continue releasing all the abandoned codebase?

I understand that some people in the Commons PMC might want to
evaluate the usefulness of each new component.
But why not discuss each one proposed, specifically?


Regards,
Gilles

> 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]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Jörg Schaible-5
In reply to this post by Stian Soiland-Reyes
Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:

> +1 for a move to Incubator, rather than a TLP, as Math now needs to
> find its new ground and direction, and in particular grow its active
> developer base.
>
>
> The incubator is great for reducing the distance for moving from
> contributor to committer, and for letting everyone get a say in what
> direction you are moving. The role of the incubator mentors is to help
> you build the community, and while it's not always fun to get reminded
> about what is missing here, the process of the incubator forces the
> community focus (who are we) and not just code focus (what does it
> do).
>
> Obviously you can do that straight as a TLP as well, but I think given
> the fork happened, Math needs to grow more slowly back into shape, and
> the Incubator should be good for that.
>
> I agree on trying to write an Incubator proposal and start discussing
> it on general@incubator.

+1 (binding)

for the same reasons.

- Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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)...

Benedikt Ritter-4
In reply to this post by James Carman
James Carman <[hidden email]> schrieb am Sa., 11. Juni 2016 um
05:47 Uhr:

> 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.
>

+1 for going through incubation and forming a new TLP when the community is
big enough.


>
> Thank you,
>
> James Carman
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

James Carman
We should probably tally the votes at this point, but it is pretty clear
that there is no consensus, unfortunately. I honestly have no idea what to
do at this point. I have limited connectivity today.

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:51 PM Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> James Carman <[hidden email]> schrieb am Sa., 11. Juni 2016 um
> 05:47 Uhr:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> +1 for going through incubation and forming a new TLP when the community is
> big enough.
>
>
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > James Carman
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

garydgregory
Do we need some kind of ranked vote with choices like:

Where should Commons Math go (in alpha order)?
- Commons Attic
- Incubator then TLP
- Incubator then Commons Math
- Stay put
- TLP

?


On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:31 AM, James Carman <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> We should probably tally the votes at this point, but it is pretty clear
> that there is no consensus, unfortunately. I honestly have no idea what to
> do at this point. I have limited connectivity today.
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:51 PM Benedikt Ritter <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > James Carman <[hidden email]> schrieb am Sa., 11. Juni 2016
> um
> > 05:47 Uhr:
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > +1 for going through incubation and forming a new TLP when the community
> is
> > big enough.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > James Carman
> > >
> >
>



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

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

Dennis E. Hamilton
Brief side-comments from a lurker.

It appears that any kind of [VOTE] is premature.  There needs to be a better way to find consensus, including more preparatory discussion and determination of an actionable direction.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Gregory [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 10:40
> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)...
>
> Do we need some kind of ranked vote with choices like:
>
> Where should Commons Math go (in alpha order)?
> - Commons Attic
> - Incubator then TLP
> - Incubator then Commons Math
[orcmid]

"Incubator then ... " is not in the Power of Apache Commons to determine.  How something enters and then leaves incubation is entirely for Apache Incubator to work through based on how the podling moves toward graduation.  I'd be surprised if a podling proposal would be accepted with strings attached.

I suggest that the way the Incubator option goes forward at all is by starting, here at Commons, a draft Incubator proposal with the important-to-Commons aspect being identification of the code base and related artifacts that will be transposed into the podling on acceptance of the proposal.  

It is somewhat orthogonal to that for Commons to determine what is done with the current Commons Math code base and related artifacts if the incubation proposal is approved by Incubator.  I suspect that there needs to be some consensus around that before Commons would express any sort of advisory/consensus agreement from Commons unless the incubation is simply done as a fork to which Commons has no objection.  

It seems to me that the best way to achieve clarity is by starting down this road, first at Commons.  It is a reversible journey up to the point that an Incubator vote on acceptance of the podling passes.


> - Stay put
> - TLP
[orcmid]

The TLP case raises all of the same questions with regard to transposition of code and other artifacts (e.g., JIRA, web pages, dedicated lists, ....), suggesting that the incubation proposal exercise would be equally valuable for clarity before taking a TLP resolution to the Board.

>
> ?
>
[ .... ]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
I don't see the need for a consensus. If some people want to write an
incubator proposal, they can write it. If they can sell it to the
incubator, they have a podling. Meanwhile, the code remains Apache
Licensed, and anyone who wants to commit things to it back here can do
that. Eventually, there would need to be a split of java package names
and maven coordinates.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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

> On Jun 17, 2016, at 12:11 PM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I don't see the need for a consensus. If some people want to write an
> incubator proposal, they can write it. If they can sell it to the
> incubator, they have a podling. Meanwhile, the code remains Apache
> Licensed, and anyone who wants to commit things to it back here can do
> that. Eventually, there would need to be a split of java package names
> and maven coordinates.

While true, I think Dennis’ suggestion is more likely to succeed.  Draft a proposal and modify it until you can get a large enough community around it to make it be something the incubator (or board) would approve.  All of Commons doesn’t need to agree on it, only those who choose to sign their names to it.

Ralph



---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 garydgregory
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:39:38 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Do we need some kind of ranked vote with choices like:
>
> Where should Commons Math go (in alpha order)?
> - Commons Attic
> - Incubator then TLP
> - Incubator then Commons Math
> - Stay put
> - TLP

   - Create components (with code extracted from the "develop" branch)

> ?

Gilles


> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:31 AM, James Carman
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> We should probably tally the votes at this point, but it is pretty
>> clear
>> that there is no consensus, unfortunately. I honestly have no idea
>> what to
>> do at this point. I have limited connectivity today.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:51 PM Benedikt Ritter
>> <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > James Carman <[hidden email]> schrieb am Sa., 11. Juni
>> 2016
>> um
>> > 05:47 Uhr:
>> >
>> > > 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.
>> > >
>> >
>> > +1 for going through incubation and forming a new TLP when the
>> community
>> is
>> > big enough.
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > 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 garydgregory
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Gary Gregory <[hidden email]> wrote:

> - Incubator then TLP
> - Incubator then Commons Math

There's no reason to distinguish those. It's initially the same, and
both directions would be open, anyways.

Jochen


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

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

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

12