> Was it mentioned that anybody would be forbidden to subscribe to any > ML they see fit?
You missed my point - but never mind. >> That comparison is pretty flawed as those projects are not tiny >> components. > > > I'm not talking about the size of components, but the size of the > ML traffic. So just because a component/project has a lot of ML traffic you want to make it TLP? Usually it should be about having enough active committers and users. While this might contribute to ML traffic, it doesn't necessarily mean the same. >> I've never a great fan of umbrellas but the components are so small - >> I don't see another option. The thought of components to go TLP feels >> just plain silly to me. Hence it would be great to work together as a >> community that takes care of those components. > > > The idea of "Commons Math" being a component is silly, but we can accept > silly things that result from history (and consider the practical > advantages, as I noted elsewhere). Well, by the current definition it's not an Apache project. Call it sub-project if you like - I don't care. At some stage we decided to call it component. After all I see it as a library. Do you think it's more and needs to be raised to the level to full blown project like hadoop or httpd? Not sure it Math holds that comparison but you are welcome to convince us. > If it depends on the name of the list, I guess that the "sense of > community" is not very developed... And that's what I call an oversimplification. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
