On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 06:49:02 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 2/1/16 6:24 AM, Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 06:20:14 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
Unscientifically, but in the interest of keeping things moving, it
looks to me like just plain "math" is the winner. Any objections
to
moving forward with this name?
Phil
Proposals were not all presented when people gave opinions.
A [VOTE] perhaps?
Yes, we could do a poll and if you or others feel that is necessary,
I will kick it off. It just looked to me like we were close enough
to consensus on math as the name to make it binary.
Not if you please take into account my remark below.
Do you have
objections to that name?
Yes.
"Math" is (a bit?) overwhelming for a team of 5- people.
In "Commons" there was the rationale of accepting only "common"
algorithms (although that was fairly fuzzy as a limitation).
Not so with that overly general name.
It's a library that will contain math, yes; all of math, certainly
not.
So the name is just a name; it should point to project, not to a
general concept.
Gilles
Does anyone else prefer to do a poll?
Phil
Actually: Who should vote, or not?
[Logic would have it that people they do not intend to join
development of the new project should not...]
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
