On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> 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. 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:niall.pember...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 11:56 >>> To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> >>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)... >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:39 AM, James Carman >>> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> >>> 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 >>> <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>> > 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 >>> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> >>> > > 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: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
