> On Aug 3, 2016, at 8:16 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 07:09:50 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote: >>> On Aug 3, 2016, at 3:46 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 23:59:23 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote: >>>>> On Aug 2, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Most PMC members seem to wish that CM becomes dormant. >>>>> I totally agree with you that it would be good to have _that_ >>>>> clarified. >>>> >>>> I have no idea how that is your takeaway from all the discussions. >>>> The point I have tried to make is that CM needs a community of >>>> committers, not just you. >>> >>> The current situation is that there is only me (with commit >>> privilege). >>> Without me, all development activity would have stopped more than >>> 8 months ago. [That's an observational fact.] >>> >>> There are volunteers for following up on my proposals but, indeed, >>> their statements seem to count for nothing. >>> >>> Isn't it awkward that people like Rob Tompkins, formerly interested >>> in contributing to CM feels compelled to find "something else" to do >>> here in order to get noticed, and perhaps later (or perhaps never) >>> get the authorization to do what he really intended to in the first >>> place? >> >> There isn’t enough to do in CM to warrant becoming a Commons >> committer? I am pretty sure that isn’t true. People don’t have to work >> on different things, they just have to work on enough and participate >> enough to have someone propose them as a committer. BTW - did I miss >> your nominations for committers to help on Math? > > Nominations? Based on what? > Everyone here has the same information as I do about the would-be > committers.
So why are you even bringing up that he has to go find something to work on? > > Would you vote positively at this point? > > They want to work on CM but that would imply that I am the sole relay > to the repository, for reviewing, commenting, checking, committing, And that is a problem because….? Actually, any committer could apply the patches if they wanted to, but I am sure they wouldn’t do it without your blessing. > > With current CM, this includes bits of code on which I'd rather not > comment anymore... > >>> If this PMC intended to discourage contributors, that would be a >>> nice way. >>> >>>> My position has always been that having >>>> discussions about what to do with the code is a waste of time when you >>>> are the only committer doing anything. >>> >>> IMHO, you get things upside down (as did the CM team all along): >>> people come to contribute because they are interested in the code >>> (be it to add to it, up to completely overhaul it, from time to >>> time). >>> Where the project is heading to is a fundamental aspect for >>> deciding whether one wants to contribute. >>> >>> As an example, Artem Barger is interested in improving the >>> "machine-learning" package. >>> As it happens, I'm also interested in that part of CM. Why >>> should we have to carry the burden of the pack of codes left >>> behind by the forkers and _literally_ waste our time maintaining >>> something that either we don't use or needs thorough refactoring? >>> >>> The extracting of modules would make it clear to users and >>> would-be contributors what is currently being worked on and what >>> is in need of maintainers. >>> >>> But the Commons PMC does indeed "prefers" a monolithic and >>> _dormant_ CM. >> >> Bull pucky. That is just your interpretation. > > No, it's not just an interpretation. > Several people, not contributing to CM (Oh, again, I said it) > said they "prefer" a single component. When asked to explain > their rationale, there is just "feeling". > > So if they won't "feel" like voting for a release, it's disrespectful > to ask people like Rob or Artem to work on these codes. > > I can understand that not everyone is interested in those > components, but that there is only a minority (i.e. me) here > interested in them should prompt for action, not idly waiting > for the matter to go into oblivion. That would the role of > a useful PMC. > > James tried to do something. > Jochen tried. > I tried. > > Everything blocked by a diffuse "feeling”. My memory must be going. I don’t recall seeing any -1 votes on any commits. That is the only thing that counts. > >> I have no problem with >> whatever the community wants to do. > > If that were true, you could have said that the newcomers who > want to work on a revised CM are welcome to do so, and the > output of that work would normally be adopted by Commons > (unless it's proven crappy of course). OK. Newcomers are free to work on whatever they want, whether it is fixing new bugs, refactoring code, creating new components. Whatever. And that doesn’t apply to just Commons Math but pretty much every project at the ASF. No one should have to tell you that that is allowed. As you have said a million times, you are currently the only one committing to CM so it is only going to be pretty much you who blocks commits. > >>> >>>> Moving Math to the incubator >>>> would have allowed you to have a much lower barrier to add new >>>> committers, but you didn’t really want to discuss doing that. >>> >>> This is plain false. >>> >>> Incubator PMC people said that it was one-of-a-kind situation, >>> noting that the incubator's usual task was to create an Apache >>> project around an existing community, not to discuss how to >>> create one. >>> >> >> Bull pucky again. > > Send that to the concerned people. What concerned people. No one ever created an incubator proposal to discuss. If you had I would have pointed out the exact same thing. > >> The Logging PMC (of which I am currently the >> chair) moved Log4cxx to the incubator to try to build a larger >> community. All the committers had disappeared but we had people on the >> mailing list saying they wanted to work on it. So we moved it to the >> incubator where they got commit access. The Logging project is much >> like commons where when you have commit access you can work on any >> subproject, so we had the same reluctance to give unproven people >> commit access. > > Again, wrong, wrong, comparison: logging is limited scope, "math" > is not. We go to the incubator to do _what_? > That's a real question. If Jochen has answers… Logging is a limited scope? What are you smoking and where can I get some. You go to the incubator so that you have an lower bar for giving commit rights to people who are interested so you can build a community. Ralph
