Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Jochen Wiedmann]

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Artem Barger  wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Rob Tompkins  wrote:
>
>> So based upon all of the conversation here, I’ve concluded that the best
>> path forward is to attempt to grow the community inside commons. That’s why
>> I’m sticking with attempts to make contributions elsewhere in commons to
>> gain the requisite rapport for committer status. Once I’ve accomplished
>> that, then we’ll have two sets of hands to help here.
>>
>
> While I can imagine myself contributing to other commons projects, it
> still sounds a bit weird to me, contributing in one place just to
> eventually get a mandate to be able to make the contribution in different
> place.


Quite right. Although a Committer ends up with access to all
components, the usual path is still by contributing to a single
component. Much easier to gain others confidence in one place, than
all around.

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

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Artem Barger]

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Rob Tompkins  wrote:

> So based upon all of the conversation here, I’ve concluded that the best
> path forward is to attempt to grow the community inside commons. That’s why
> I’m sticking with attempts to make contributions elsewhere in commons to
> gain the requisite rapport for committer status. Once I’ve accomplished
> that, then we’ll have two sets of hands to help here.
>

​While I can imagine myself contributing to other commons projects, it
still sounds a bit weird to me, contributing in one place just to
eventually get a mandate to be able to make the contribution in ​different
place.


> Further it seems that we’ve gotten ourselves into a vicious cycle sort of
> place, in that to gain a community we need a mechanism to quickly get
> commits into the component, but to do that we need more devoted committers
> (i.e. a larger community).
>
> Any thoughts here?
>

​I still full of hope to make my way directly into math without seeking for
alternatives. :)))​



Best regards,
  Artem Barger.

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Rob Tompkins]

My overall impression about the problem is that we have a commons component 
that requires a considerable of non-java domain specific knowledge to make 
contributions. Thus, our general java expertise is not necessarily sufficient 
to vet contributions. From what I can tell, commons-math might be the component 
that is most off the beaten path of the deep java generalist in commons. 

So based upon all of the conversation here, I’ve concluded that the best path 
forward is to attempt to grow the community inside commons. That’s why I’m 
sticking with attempts to make contributions elsewhere in commons to gain the 
requisite rapport for committer status. Once I’ve accomplished that, then we’ll 
have two sets of hands to help here.

Further it seems that we’ve gotten ourselves into a vicious cycle sort of 
place, in that to gain a community we need a mechanism to quickly get commits 
into the component, but to do that we need more devoted committers (i.e. a 
larger community).

Any thoughts here?

-Rob

P.S.  Generally, how high is the bar for gaining committer status? I’ve got 2 
patches into math currently and am working on a PR for Lang.

> On Aug 4, 2016, at 8:14 PM, Gilles  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 13:09:21 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> Are you waiting on an answer before reviewing and/or merging his pull
>> requests?
> 
> We are all unlucky that CM developers left.  My post with subject
> "Commons Math (r)evolution" (referred to below) dates from June 5
> (in part inspired by Artem's willingness to contribute), and I'm
> still waiting for a "confidence vote" that would reflect what I
> did during the previous 6 months (and my presence here for much
> longer).
> 
> For the record:
> * MATH-1372 has code committed in a dedicated branch.
> * Artem's other issues are with algorithms on which he knows much
>  more than I do.
> * Since then, other requests are pending (also on code which I did
>  not write).
> * Before then, some seemingly serious issues (see "MullerSolver")
>  led to a discussion that was left dangling, indefinitely waiting
>  for an answer (from the people who were busy "privately discussing"
>  their fork).
> 
> Overall, this requires more work than I can reasonably afford.
> I was left the dark during months by the forkers, all the while
> obliviously (and quite unreasonably) doing development for CM v4.0,
> ensuring a presence for CM-related questions and requests on the ML
> and providing timely answers on JIRA (and subsequent commits,
> whenever possible).
> 
> This activity might have led PMC members to believe that it could
> go on forever.
> But the "takeaway" point I had made on June 5 is that "business as
> usual" was not an option (for me). [Hence the alternative proposed
> in that same post.]
> 
> I hope that is quite clear now.
> 
> Gilles
> 
> 
>> Ralph
>> 
>>> On Aug 4, 2016, at 10:49 AM, Gilles  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 10:13:26 -0400, Artem Barger wrote:
 On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Ralph Goers 
 wrote:
 
> > All I'm saying this is one of the problems within CM, ​which IMO only a
> > symptom for more acute problem of missing community. Also as you can see
> in
> > ML archive I've tried several times to rise discussion around work I'm
> > doing and also asked for PR review.
> > And to be precise, right now the someone to apply is Gilles only, as far
> as
> > I'm getting situation correctly.
> 
> Any Commons committer can apply the patch. But to be honest, unless the
> patch is somewhat obvious or is in a part of the code Gilles isn’t 
> familiar
> with, I would expect most everyone would wait for Gilles blessing.
 
 
 ​So if almost everyone supposed to wait until Gilles will accept it, why
 Gilles initiatives of how project should be divided into separate
 independent modules could not be accepted? I mean what should happen
 effectively, to move things forward?  I was using CM for implementation of
 different parts of my thesis work and I couldn't imagine to myself that
 proposing improvements or new things related to CM base code will be so
 hard.
>>> 
>>> From reading this thread, it seems that people forgot (or did not
>>> read the whole story from when were informed of the fork) that the
>>> Commons Math team was reduced by more than 85% in a very short time
>>> span. [Without any prior warning or attempt to resolve conflicts
>>> (archives are proofs of that).]
>>> 
>>> I had made a summary of the situation:
>>> http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> After all the discussions, we eventually are back at square one: What
>>> could be done previously with 5 or 6 long-time maintainers (and code
>>> creators), all PMC members, and 2 or 3 additional team members, cannot
>>> be done by me alone.   But PMC people continue to state that I am the
>>> one to do the work (review contributions, "bles

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Gilles]

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 13:09:21 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:

Are you waiting on an answer before reviewing and/or merging his pull
requests?


We are all unlucky that CM developers left.  My post with subject
"Commons Math (r)evolution" (referred to below) dates from June 5
(in part inspired by Artem's willingness to contribute), and I'm
still waiting for a "confidence vote" that would reflect what I
did during the previous 6 months (and my presence here for much
longer).

For the record:
* MATH-1372 has code committed in a dedicated branch.
* Artem's other issues are with algorithms on which he knows much
  more than I do.
* Since then, other requests are pending (also on code which I did
  not write).
* Before then, some seemingly serious issues (see "MullerSolver")
  led to a discussion that was left dangling, indefinitely waiting
  for an answer (from the people who were busy "privately discussing"
  their fork).

Overall, this requires more work than I can reasonably afford.
I was left the dark during months by the forkers, all the while
obliviously (and quite unreasonably) doing development for CM v4.0,
ensuring a presence for CM-related questions and requests on the ML
and providing timely answers on JIRA (and subsequent commits,
whenever possible).

This activity might have led PMC members to believe that it could
go on forever.
But the "takeaway" point I had made on June 5 is that "business as
usual" was not an option (for me). [Hence the alternative proposed
in that same post.]

I hope that is quite clear now.

Gilles



Ralph

On Aug 4, 2016, at 10:49 AM, Gilles  
wrote:


On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 10:13:26 -0400, Artem Barger wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Ralph Goers 


wrote:

> All I'm saying this is one of the problems within CM, ​which IMO 
only a
> symptom for more acute problem of missing community. Also as you 
can see

in
> ML archive I've tried several times to rise discussion around 
work I'm

> doing and also asked for PR review.
> And to be precise, right now the someone to apply is Gilles 
only, as far

as
> I'm getting situation correctly.

Any Commons committer can apply the patch. But to be honest, 
unless the
patch is somewhat obvious or is in a part of the code Gilles isn’t 
familiar

with, I would expect most everyone would wait for Gilles blessing.



​So if almost everyone supposed to wait until Gilles will accept 
it, why

Gilles initiatives of how project should be divided into separate
independent modules could not be accepted? I mean what should 
happen
effectively, to move things forward?  I was using CM for 
implementation of
different parts of my thesis work and I couldn't imagine to myself 
that
proposing improvements or new things related to CM base code will 
be so

hard.


From reading this thread, it seems that people forgot (or did not
read the whole story from when were informed of the fork) that the
Commons Math team was reduced by more than 85% in a very short time
span. [Without any prior warning or attempt to resolve conflicts
(archives are proofs of that).]

I had made a summary of the situation:
 http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp 



After all the discussions, we eventually are back at square one: 
What

could be done previously with 5 or 6 long-time maintainers (and code
creators), all PMC members, and 2 or 3 additional team members, 
cannot
be done by me alone.   But PMC people continue to state that I am 
the

one to do the work (review contributions, "bless" them; from there,
nominate people, "grow a community", and in the mean time, apply all
the patches).

If this is indeed the case, then as Artem states pointedly, why 
can't

I *also* decide what is best for this embryo of a new community of
contributors?

Again, nobody answered a simple question:  Why not create as many
components as any PMC member would fancy, and see how they fare in
the world of modules at large, rather than have non-contributors 
guess

at, or "feel", what is a good component?

As I stated many times, this IMO seems a contradiction with the 
"those

who do the work get to decide" purported Apache/Commons policy...

I'm willing to try avoiding what I deems where CM management 
mistakes.

I refuse to work under the old model.

If this PMC refuses to consider the experiment, it should be 
suggesting
alternatives (e.g. someone else willing to step forward and work 
under
the old model) or acknowledge that *it* (and not me) prefers to see 
the

CM code rot.


Regards,
Gilles


Best regards,
 Artem Barger.






-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Emmanuel Bourg]

Le 3/08/2016 à 09:20, Jörg Schaible a écrit :

> At least for RNG you had three binding votes. Why not simply start with it 
> and if the overall experience is positive for the community regarding the 
> new component, people might reconsider their decision for the other proposed 
> components (or even make up their minds to vote at all).

+1 again, let's start with a low hanging fruit.

Emmanuel Bourg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Ralph Goers]

Are you waiting on an answer before reviewing and/or merging his pull requests?

Ralph

> On Aug 4, 2016, at 10:49 AM, Gilles  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 10:13:26 -0400, Artem Barger wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Ralph Goers 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> > All I'm saying this is one of the problems within CM, ​which IMO only a
>>> > symptom for more acute problem of missing community. Also as you can see
>>> in
>>> > ML archive I've tried several times to rise discussion around work I'm
>>> > doing and also asked for PR review.
>>> > And to be precise, right now the someone to apply is Gilles only, as far
>>> as
>>> > I'm getting situation correctly.
>>> 
>>> Any Commons committer can apply the patch. But to be honest, unless the
>>> patch is somewhat obvious or is in a part of the code Gilles isn’t familiar
>>> with, I would expect most everyone would wait for Gilles blessing.
>> 
>> 
>> ​So if almost everyone supposed to wait until Gilles will accept it, why
>> Gilles initiatives of how project should be divided into separate
>> independent modules could not be accepted? I mean what should happen
>> effectively, to move things forward?  I was using CM for implementation of
>> different parts of my thesis work and I couldn't imagine to myself that
>> proposing improvements or new things related to CM base code will be so
>> hard.
> 
> From reading this thread, it seems that people forgot (or did not
> read the whole story from when were informed of the fork) that the
> Commons Math team was reduced by more than 85% in a very short time
> span. [Without any prior warning or attempt to resolve conflicts
> (archives are proofs of that).]
> 
> I had made a summary of the situation:
>  http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp 
> 
> 
> After all the discussions, we eventually are back at square one: What
> could be done previously with 5 or 6 long-time maintainers (and code
> creators), all PMC members, and 2 or 3 additional team members, cannot
> be done by me alone.   But PMC people continue to state that I am the
> one to do the work (review contributions, "bless" them; from there,
> nominate people, "grow a community", and in the mean time, apply all
> the patches).
> 
> If this is indeed the case, then as Artem states pointedly, why can't
> I *also* decide what is best for this embryo of a new community of
> contributors?
> 
> Again, nobody answered a simple question:  Why not create as many
> components as any PMC member would fancy, and see how they fare in
> the world of modules at large, rather than have non-contributors guess
> at, or "feel", what is a good component?
> 
> As I stated many times, this IMO seems a contradiction with the "those
> who do the work get to decide" purported Apache/Commons policy...
> 
> I'm willing to try avoiding what I deems where CM management mistakes.
> I refuse to work under the old model.
> 
> If this PMC refuses to consider the experiment, it should be suggesting
> alternatives (e.g. someone else willing to step forward and work under
> the old model) or acknowledge that *it* (and not me) prefers to see the
> CM code rot.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Gilles
> 
>> Best regards,
>>  Artem Barger.
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org 
> 
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org 
> 

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Gilles]

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 10:13:26 -0400, Artem Barger wrote:
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Ralph Goers 


wrote:

> All I'm saying this is one of the problems within CM, ​which IMO 
only a
> symptom for more acute problem of missing community. Also as you 
can see

in
> ML archive I've tried several times to rise discussion around work 
I'm

> doing and also asked for PR review.
> And to be precise, right now the someone to apply is Gilles only, 
as far

as
> I'm getting situation correctly.

Any Commons committer can apply the patch. But to be honest, unless 
the
patch is somewhat obvious or is in a part of the code Gilles isn’t 
familiar

with, I would expect most everyone would wait for Gilles blessing.



​So if almost everyone supposed to wait until Gilles will accept it, 
why

Gilles initiatives of how project should be divided into separate
independent modules could not be accepted? I mean what should happen
effectively, to move things forward?  I was using CM for 
implementation of
different parts of my thesis work and I couldn't imagine to myself 
that
proposing improvements or new things related to CM base code will be 
so

hard.


From reading this thread, it seems that people forgot (or did not
read the whole story from when were informed of the fork) that the
Commons Math team was reduced by more than 85% in a very short time
span. [Without any prior warning or attempt to resolve conflicts
(archives are proofs of that).]

I had made a summary of the situation:
  http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp

After all the discussions, we eventually are back at square one: What
could be done previously with 5 or 6 long-time maintainers (and code
creators), all PMC members, and 2 or 3 additional team members, cannot
be done by me alone.   But PMC people continue to state that I am the
one to do the work (review contributions, "bless" them; from there,
nominate people, "grow a community", and in the mean time, apply all
the patches).

If this is indeed the case, then as Artem states pointedly, why can't
I *also* decide what is best for this embryo of a new community of
contributors?

Again, nobody answered a simple question:  Why not create as many
components as any PMC member would fancy, and see how they fare in
the world of modules at large, rather than have non-contributors guess
at, or "feel", what is a good component?

As I stated many times, this IMO seems a contradiction with the "those
who do the work get to decide" purported Apache/Commons policy...

I'm willing to try avoiding what I deems where CM management mistakes.
I refuse to work under the old model.

If this PMC refuses to consider the experiment, it should be suggesting
alternatives (e.g. someone else willing to step forward and work under
the old model) or acknowledge that *it* (and not me) prefers to see the
CM code rot.


Regards,
Gilles


Best regards,
  Artem Barger.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Artem Barger]

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Ralph Goers 
wrote:

> > All I'm saying this is one of the problems within CM, ​which IMO only a
> > symptom for more acute problem of missing community. Also as you can see
> in
> > ML archive I've tried several times to rise discussion around work I'm
> > doing and also asked for PR review.
> > And to be precise, right now the someone to apply is Gilles only, as far
> as
> > I'm getting situation correctly.
>
> Any Commons committer can apply the patch. But to be honest, unless the
> patch is somewhat obvious or is in a part of the code Gilles isn’t familiar
> with, I would expect most everyone would wait for Gilles blessing.


​So if almost everyone supposed to wait until Gilles will accept it, why
Gilles initiatives of how project should be divided into separate
independent modules could not be accepted? I mean what should happen
effectively, to move things forward?  I was using CM for implementation of
different parts of my thesis work and I couldn't imagine to myself that
proposing improvements or new things related to CM base code will be so
hard.


Best regards,
  Artem Barger.

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Ralph Goers]

> On Aug 4, 2016, at 6:39 AM, Artem Barger  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
> 
>> So you are saying that the real problem is that no one involved with
>> Commons Math is acting on the work you are doing. In other projects PRs
>> don’t always get acted upon immediately, but 3 months is a bit long.
>> Pinging on the list to get someone to apply them is always a good idea.
> 
> 
> All I'm saying this is one of the problems within CM, ​which IMO only a
> symptom for more acute problem of missing community. Also as you can see in
> ML archive I've tried several times to rise discussion around work I'm
> doing and also asked for PR review.
> And to be precise, right now the someone to apply is Gilles only, as far as
> I'm getting situation correctly.

Any Commons committer can apply the patch. But to be honest, unless the patch 
is somewhat obvious or is in a part of the code Gilles isn’t familiar with, I 
would expect most everyone would wait for Gilles blessing.

Ralph

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Artem Barger]

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Ralph Goers 
wrote:

> So you are saying that the real problem is that no one involved with
> Commons Math is acting on the work you are doing. In other projects PRs
> don’t always get acted upon immediately, but 3 months is a bit long.
> Pinging on the list to get someone to apply them is always a good idea.


All I'm saying this is one of the problems within CM, ​which IMO only a
symptom for more acute problem of missing community. Also as you can see in
ML archive I've tried several times to rise discussion around work I'm
doing and also asked for PR review.
And to be precise, right now the someone to apply is Gilles only, as far as
I'm getting situation correctly.


Best regards,
  Artem Barger.

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Ralph Goers]

> On Aug 3, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Artem Barger  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Ralph Goers 
> wrote:
> 
>>> 1. My understanding is that any ASF committer has commit rights to
>> Commons.  That is one case for a low barrier to entry. Of course, any
>> committer will want to learn the way-of-working at Commons and any
>> interesting subprojects, but commit rights is not itself an issue in this
>> case, yes?
>>>   Has that changed?
>> 
>> That has not changed, but I am of the impression that the folks expressing
>> interest in Commons Math don’t have commit rights to any ASF project.
> 
> 
> ​Well, I'm not speak about commit rights, let's start from the point where
> PR and JIRA reports got reviewed and accepted/rejected/commented. My three
> PRs has been there for couple of months, but nothing effectively has happen
> since when. And this is why I've initiated this thread to try to get clear
> picture of where things are currently standing and understand whenever I
> should continue ti investing my time proposing changes and improvements
> here or shall I just skip and try something else. ​
> 

So you are saying that the real problem is that no one involved with Commons 
Math is acting on the work you are doing. In other projects PRs don’t always 
get acted upon immediately, but 3 months is a bit long.  Pinging on the list to 
get someone to apply them is always a good idea.

Ralph

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Artem Barger]

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Ralph Goers 
wrote:

> > 1. My understanding is that any ASF committer has commit rights to
> Commons.  That is one case for a low barrier to entry. Of course, any
> committer will want to learn the way-of-working at Commons and any
> interesting subprojects, but commit rights is not itself an issue in this
> case, yes?
> >Has that changed?
>
> That has not changed, but I am of the impression that the folks expressing
> interest in Commons Math don’t have commit rights to any ASF project.


​Well, I'm not speak about commit rights, let's start from the point where
PR and JIRA reports got reviewed and accepted/rejected/commented. My three
PRs has been there for couple of months, but nothing effectively has happen
since when. And this is why I've initiated this thread to try to get clear
picture of where things are currently standing and understand whenever I
should continue ti investing my time proposing changes and improvements
here or shall I just skip and try something else. ​


Best regards,
  Artem Barger.

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Artem Barger]

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Ralph Goers 
wrote:

> > 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.
>

​That being said, I'm trying to find my way on the CM project, proposed
several PR, opened a couple of issues in JIRA, however nothing seems to
happen with it, here I'm asking the question about the productivity and
actual need to continue and contribute my work to the project. I'd say this
is pretty weird situation where one would start contributing to other
common project to eventually be able to contribute to CM.​


Best regards,
  Artem Barger.

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Dave Fisher]

Gilles,

A suggestion from the peanut gallery. Look into the offered contributions and 
grow the community should these prove merit. Avoiding these contributions 
assures that you are the one who actually wants CM to be dormant..

If POI had not done this over the years the project would be dormant. Instead 
the active group other than Nick turns over every 3 to 5 years.

Apache requires a community. Get it, grow it.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 3, 2016, at 8:16 AM, Gilles  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 07:09:50 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> On Aug 3, 2016, at 3:46 AM, Gilles  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 23:59:23 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Gilles  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


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

RE: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 11:30
> To: Commons Developers List ;
> dennis.hamil...@acm.org
> Subject: Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?
> 
> 
> > On Aug 3, 2016, at 9:55 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>  wrote:
> >
> > Side questions, below
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 08:41
> >> To: Commons Developers List 
> >> Subject: Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?
> > [ ... ]
> >> 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.
> >>
> > [ ... ]
> >> 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
> > [orcmid]
> >
> > 1. My understanding is that any ASF committer has commit rights to
> Commons.  That is one case for a low barrier to entry. Of course, any
> committer will want to learn the way-of-working at Commons and any
> interesting subprojects, but commit rights is not itself an issue in
> this case, yes?
> >Has that changed?
> 
> That has not changed, but I am of the impression that the folks
> expressing interest in Commons Math don’t have commit rights to any ASF
> project.
> 
> 
> >
> > 2. I am not clear about the idea of a low-barrier to entry as a
> committer in an incubator versus here at Commons.  Although a common
> practice is to invite contributors to be committers and PPMC members at
> the same time, and there is emphasis on growing community, this need not
> be particularly different at a Top Level Project.  (Commons has the
> rather unique characteristic of many loosely-coupled subcomponents and I
> can't speak to how that figures in governance.)
> >What is the thinking that it would be easier to grow in the
> incubator?  Visibility?  Focus?
> 
> If you have someone who is a Commons Math user and isn’t otherwise
> involved in the ASF who would like to be a committer it would be far
> easier for them to do that in the incubator than in Commons. The PPMC is
> free to set the bar as low or as hight as they want while the Commons
> PMC may want to see more of a history then the PPMC would.
[orcmid] 

It's not clear to me whether that is actually true.  I think it will vary.  It 
might be easier because of the specificity of the incubating project's scope 
and focus.  But, once an ASF committer, always an ASF committer, whether first 
invited to a podling or to a top-level-project.  That does not make one a 
committer on a particular project (other than Commons and, perhaps still, 
Incubator, for the PPMC avenue), so there is still a matter of merit and 
gaining karma elsewhere.  I think that, culturally, this is observed by Members 
too, even though there might not be any mechanical barrier.

Is that accurate?

I agree there is the matter of who is interested in particular Commons 
subprojects, including under Math, where there is specialized domain knowledge 
involved.

> 
> Ralph
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Ralph Goers]

> On Aug 3, 2016, at 9:55 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton  
> wrote:
> 
> Side questions, below
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 08:41
>> To: Commons Developers List 
>> Subject: Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?
> [ ... ]
>> 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.
>> 
> [ ... ]
>> 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
> [orcmid] 
> 
> 1. My understanding is that any ASF committer has commit rights to Commons.  
> That is one case for a low barrier to entry. Of course, any committer will 
> want to learn the way-of-working at Commons and any interesting subprojects, 
> but commit rights is not itself an issue in this case, yes?
>Has that changed?

That has not changed, but I am of the impression that the folks expressing 
interest in Commons Math don’t have commit rights to any ASF project.


> 
> 2. I am not clear about the idea of a low-barrier to entry as a committer in 
> an incubator versus here at Commons.  Although a common practice is to invite 
> contributors to be committers and PPMC members at the same time, and there is 
> emphasis on growing community, this need not be particularly different at a 
> Top Level Project.  (Commons has the rather unique characteristic of many 
> loosely-coupled subcomponents and I can't speak to how that figures in 
> governance.)
>What is the thinking that it would be easier to grow in the incubator?  
> Visibility?  Focus?

If you have someone who is a Commons Math user and isn’t otherwise involved in 
the ASF who would like to be a committer it would be far easier for them to do 
that in the incubator than in Commons. The PPMC is free to set the bar as low 
or as hight as they want while the Commons PMC may want to see more of a 
history then the PPMC would.

Ralph



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

RE: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Side questions, below

> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 08:41
> To: Commons Developers List 
> Subject: Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?
[ ... ]
> 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.
> 
[ ... ]
> 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
[orcmid] 
 
 1. My understanding is that any ASF committer has commit rights to Commons.  
That is one case for a low barrier to entry. Of course, any committer will want 
to learn the way-of-working at Commons and any interesting subprojects, but 
commit rights is not itself an issue in this case, yes?
Has that changed?

 2. I am not clear about the idea of a low-barrier to entry as a committer in 
an incubator versus here at Commons.  Although a common practice is to invite 
contributors to be committers and PPMC members at the same time, and there is 
emphasis on growing community, this need not be particularly different at a Top 
Level Project.  (Commons has the rather unique characteristic of many 
loosely-coupled subcomponents and I can't speak to how that figures in 
governance.)
What is the thinking that it would be easier to grow in the incubator?  
Visibility?  Focus?

 - Dennis


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Ralph Goers]

> On Aug 3, 2016, at 8:16 AM, Gilles  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 07:09:50 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> On Aug 3, 2016, at 3:46 AM, Gilles  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 23:59:23 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Gilles  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 g

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Gilles]

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 07:09:50 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Aug 3, 2016, at 3:46 AM, Gilles  
wrote:


On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 23:59:23 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Aug 2, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Gilles  
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.

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,

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".


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).




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.


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...


Gilles



Ralph



--

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Ralph Goers]

> On Aug 3, 2016, at 3:46 AM, Gilles  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 23:59:23 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> On Aug 2, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Gilles  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?

> 
> 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. I have no problem with whatever 
the community wants to do.

> 
>> 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.  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.

Ralph

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Gilles]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 23:59:23 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Aug 2, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Gilles  
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?

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.


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.

There was James Carman's proposal to create a TLP, but the PMC
did not want to approve of that, for reasons so unclear that it
led to James' resignation.


So here
we are.


Yes, because you and others seem to abstract from the current
reality, hoping that in some indeterminate future a bunch of
people will come and say: "Hey, where is that CM?  Let's have
fun with Java 5!".

The more time passes waiting for this unlikely future, the more
unlikely it becomes.

Even if you think that I'm wrong headed, I'd dare to say that
_anything_ is better than let this code rot.
Better to try and revive parts of it, even if it is impossible
to ensure success of these offsprings.
At any rate, nothing can be worse than what "happened" a few
months ago.
Counting how many "components" have been discontinued, I have
a hard time understanding the reluctance of this committee to
give a chance to a few others!


Gilles



Ralph




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

RE: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Jörg Schaible]

Hi Gilles,

Gilles wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 09:35:43 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>> There are a number of dangling [VOTE] threads that seem to devolve
>> into inconclusive discussion.  Nevertheless, it would be useful for
>> the creator of those votes to resolve them with [RESULT][VOTE]
>> messages that account for any actual votes cast and where there were
>> no votes.
> 
> "[RESULT][VOTE]" messages were posted.

[snip]

At least for RNG you had three binding votes. Why not simply start with it 
and if the overall experience is positive for the community regarding the 
new component, people might reconsider their decision for the other proposed 
components (or even make up their minds to vote at all).

Cheers,
Jörg



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Ralph Goers]

> On Aug 2, 2016, at 4:00 PM, Gilles  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. 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. 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.  So here we are.

Ralph

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

RE: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Gilles]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 09:35:43 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

There are a number of dangling [VOTE] threads that seem to devolve
into inconclusive discussion.  Nevertheless, it would be useful for
the creator of those votes to resolve them with [RESULT][VOTE]
messages that account for any actual votes cast and where there were
no votes.


"[RESULT][VOTE]" messages were posted.


In ASF parlance, these all seem to be procedural votes, so simple
majority works (unless the Commons PMC has a well-established 
practice

that differs) -- apart from the important effort to achieve a
consensus result, where possible, by addressing possible cures for -1
votes.


A couple negative votes were cast, without proposing an alternative
other than the status quo.


And, of course, only the votes by PMC members are binding,
with due respect to community votes in striving for consensus as well
as it can be achieved.


The (non-binding) majority was in favour of creating the new
components proposed to the votes, and indicated a willingness to
work on a "reduced" CM (i.e. maintainable by the people currently
around).

However, the very low participation of binding voters and the
overall negative comments for anything but the status quo make
it fairly unlikely that the new components will get the three
necessary binding votes for release.


There's a reason for this parliamentary business: arriving at clear
conclusions and direction.  It may be that there is no such thing for
the [MATH] dilemma.


What dilemma?


 It would be good to have even that clarified.


I did try to explain (with rationale, examples and numbers) that
it was ample time to try something else; and I proposed my view
of that "something".

Most PMC members seem to wish that CM becomes dormant.
I totally agree with you that it would be good to have _that_
clarified.


Gilles


 - Dennis




-Original Message-
From: Rob Tompkins [mailto:chtom...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 08:56
To: Commons Developers List 
Subject: Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?



> On Aug 1, 2016, at 10:58 PM, Artem Barger  wrote:

[ ... ]

> Is there any decision has been made? Is Math project could be
considered as
> "dead" and no more future development is going to happen?
>
> I'm still willing to contribute to the project, but I'm really 
concern

of
> current "frozen" state, since it feels that any submition of 
changes

or
> reporting bugs to the project goes directly to "/dev/null".
>
> Best regards,
>  Artem Barger.




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

RE: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

There are a number of dangling [VOTE] threads that seem to devolve into 
inconclusive discussion.  Nevertheless, it would be useful for the creator of 
those votes to resolve them with [RESULT][VOTE] messages that account for any 
actual votes cast and where there were no votes.

In ASF parlance, these all seem to be procedural votes, so simple majority 
works (unless the Commons PMC has a well-established practice that differs) -- 
apart from the important effort to achieve a consensus result, where possible, 
by addressing possible cures for -1 votes.  And, of course, only the votes by 
PMC members are binding, with due respect to community votes in striving for 
consensus as well as it can be achieved.

There's a reason for this parliamentary business: arriving at clear conclusions 
and direction.  It may be that there is no such thing for the [MATH] dilemma.  
It would be good to have even that clarified.

 - Dennis



> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Tompkins [mailto:chtom...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 08:56
> To: Commons Developers List 
> Subject: Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?
> 
> 
> 
> > On Aug 1, 2016, at 10:58 PM, Artem Barger  wrote:
[ ... ]
> > Is there any decision has been made? Is Math project could be
> considered as
> > "dead" and no more future development is going to happen?
> >
> > I'm still willing to contribute to the project, but I'm really concern
> of
> > current "frozen" state, since it feels that any submition of changes
> or
> > reporting bugs to the project goes directly to "/dev/null".
> >
> > Best regards,
> >  Artem Barger.
> 
> -
> 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

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Artem Barger]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Rob Tompkins  wrote:

> Hey Artem,
>
> I agree. I've decided to make some contributions in commons more generally
> to gain report as to become a committer. Until I can do that, I'm guessing
> that it'll just be Gilles accepting pill requests.
>
> Cheers,
> -Rob
>

​Yeah, I was also thinking of that, however sounds a bit awkward, since I'm
mostly interested in contributing to the math rather to other projects. ​


Best regards,
  Artem Barger.

Re: [MATH]: Current state of project?

[Rob Tompkins]

> On Aug 1, 2016, at 10:58 PM, Artem Barger  wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> It's been a while since there was a lot of hot discussion regarding the
> future of the CM project, however I do not think that clear agreement was
> reached. The reason I'm wondering is because I'd like to contribute to the
> project and in fact already did, but doesn't looks like it gonna be
> accepted/checked any soon.

Hey Artem,

I agree. I've decided to make some contributions in commons more generally to 
gain report as to become a committer. Until I can do that, I'm guessing that 
it'll just be Gilles accepting pill requests. 

Cheers,
-Rob 

> 
> I have reported following issues and provided PR with proposed fixes:
> 
> 1. [MATH-1374] - https://github.com/apache/commons-math/pull/37
> 2. [MATH-1372] - https://github.com/apache/commons-math/pull/36
> 3. [MATH-1371] - https://github.com/apache/commons-math/pull/35
> 
> Reported and attached small improvement [MATH-1378].
> 
> Also I have some work in progress related to [MATH-1330].
> 
> I've been asking couple of times here in ML to review or suggest any
> improvements for bugs I've reported and PR proposed, but apparently things
> is not moving forward I guess due to the fact that there didn't remained
> any active committers/contributes.
> 
> Is there any decision has been made? Is Math project could be considered as
> "dead" and no more future development is going to happen?
> 
> I'm still willing to contribute to the project, but I'm really concern of
> current "frozen" state, since it feels that any submition of changes or
> reporting bugs to the project goes directly to "/dev/null".
> 
> Best regards,
>  Artem Barger.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org