I argued for Apache Math as I believe its this best goal. Remember that size is not what defines a TLP, community is. However, as none of the main [math] developers want this at present we need to find a second solution.
I am more convinced of the need now. The proposed new list is in fact not really a "user" list in the classic definition that we have. It is much more of a discussion list. The only question I have is whether votes, and actual code discussions will occur on this list or not. (And I ask that from a supervision point of view - HttpClient lost supervision/review when they created a new list) So, I reckon that commons-math-user (or commons-math-discuss?) could be the best solution to the problem. Consider me +0.5 so long as votes and true code discussions remain on commons-dev. Stephen > > Henri Yandell wrote: > > >I'd also suggest that 3 months after creating it, Mark would have to > > >justify the creation by showing that community has begun to grow. > > I think math could accept such an agreement. What would be a > > justification, "list activity" above a certain threshold? > Existence of community. No idea how you measure this :) Noise is one, > number of active members would be a better one, but you have to measure > active as people making noise. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
