I realize there are good intentions here. But what the common theme of
all these email chains, when you filter out the disagreements, is,
"deferred until"
If 'deferring' is the only thing we can agree on, i think something is
broken with the system.
IMO let the doers do. Clearly Gilles is the main driver of change. It
appears he now has some people who will help at least to some extent,
but he has shown over last half year (at least) that he will be the
primary one to move the code base.
I would just have Gilles (and friends) go ahead and make the changes he
feels are the right direction. If he were to take an inordinate dump in
the code base (he won't), or walk away with it half-baked (he won't),
the next person along, if ever, just can go back to an earlier branch
point and start again.
But we are supposed to be a meritocracy, not an oligarchy. It feels much
like that later at the moment.
dave
On 06/23/2016 08:53 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
My answer would be slightly different. It doesn’t. All topics related to the
code should be deferred until we know what is happening with the community.
Ralph
On Jun 23, 2016, at 5:50 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> wrote:
It doesn't, at least in my opinion. If the future Math project decides
to have a "base" component: Very well. But, if the other components
are elsewhere: Why should the base stay at Commons?
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Eric Barnhill <ericbarnh...@gmail.com> wrote:
There has been a lot of support in the discussions for, as Emmanuel put it,
a "base commons-math
component".
Where does that factor into this proposal?
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi,
I'd like an attempt to put an end to all those discussions regarding
Commons Math (CM). That means, in particular, that we find an common
agreement on a course of action. So, here's a suggestion (might as
well call it an offer, because acceptance would mean a lot of work on
my side)
1.) I'll write a proposal to move CM to the Incubator.
2.) We'll wait for the Incubators decision. If the Incubator accepts CM.
3.) If the Incubator rejects CM, then I'd start another formal TLP vote.
4.) If the board accepts the TLP: Very well.
5.) If not: So what. Now we know, at least.
In either case: At the end of the procedure, we'd have clarity. This
will allow us to focus on a smaller set of issues (technical), and we
can go on.
The important part, to me, is to find something on which we can agree.
That doesn't mean that everyone is happy with the outcome, but that
everyone's got the feeling "I can live with that". In particular,
there must not be any serious opposition later on. If you'd like to
oppose: Please do so here, and now.
Thanks,
Jochen
--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
