Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Matt Benson]

On Jun 18, 2016 2:05 PM, "Gilles"  wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 11:00:34 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Gilles 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> I'm asking, again, whether I need to initiate a VOTE that would allow me
>>> to set up a workspace ("git", etc.) and transfer some code from CM over
>>> there.
>>>
>>
>> Nothing is stopping you from setting something up.  Github is usually the
>> easiest way.
>>
>> It doesn't sound like that is what you want, however. I don't understand
>> why not.
>
>
> And I don't understand that Apache would indeed prefer that code be forked
> rather than evolved here...
>
>
>>> It may be that incubation is a good thing for Commons Math, but it
doesn't

 seem valid to say that incubation is necessary because CM is being
kicked
 out of Commons.

>>>
>>> Never said so.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm... I must have misunderstood the comment about CM not being
interested
>> in hosting "these components".
>
>
> Commons is NOT interested in hosting the new components.
> That much was made clear in Matt Benson's last post. [Maybe not
cross-posted
> to the incubator's ML.]
>

I am one person. Personally I don't understand what is so offensive to you
about retaining a hierarchical level between Commons and math-focused
artifacts; I simply feel that a preponderance of math-focused components
dilutes the Commons "brand."

br,
Matt

>
>>> There is a confusion here: *I* say that CM is dead.
>>>
>>
>> Strong words. Such statements are often frustrating to others.
>
>
> Not strong, just factual.
>
> Maybe it will be revived in the future.
> Until then, I proposed to *do* something while the others seem to only
> want to wait.
> Strange that the latter proposal seems more acceptable than mine.
>
>
>> It does
>> sound like the community has dwindled, perhaps beyond repair.
>
>
> It sure sounds like it.
> In fewer words: CM is dead.
>
>
>> The development situation *will* change because the context *has* changed
>>>
>>> (unsupported code). CM cannot go on as it did before the fork.
>>>
>>
>> You can never go home. No project stays the same.
>
>
> Well, some people in CM for years did their best to avoid change.
> I didn't like that view and argue with them because they were
> important contributors to CM.
>
> I still have to argue, but now with non-contributors.
> *This* makes no sense.
>
>
>>> Everybody (developers, users, Commons PMC) would be better off with a
>>> selected set of new (supported) components because this is something we
>>> can easily do *now* (RERO, etc.).
>>>
>>
>> This was your assertion in the long email thread. It seemed that there
was
>> significant counter-positions.
>
>
> By non-contributors, using arguments that do not fit the CM history.
>
>
>>> I'm OK to go through the incubator to do that; but I don't see that it
>>> is an easier path.  Surely it looks longer.  And it seems that even the
>>> incubator people doubt that it will lead anywhere.
>>>
>>
>> The incubator is for building community and adapting to Apache. If you
>> don't have a seed community, then incubator is the wrong place. You need
to
>> have more than just you.
>
>
> That's fair, but there are a few others; that was mentioned.
>
>
>>>
>>> Given the uncertain outcome, going through the incubator would be an
>>> attempt at rethinking the development of the currently unsupported
>>> code.  See e.g.
>>>   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-172
>>> [Or is that out of scope for an incubation proposal?]
>>
>>
>>
>> Incubator is not a place to rethink code. It is primarily for building
>> community.
>
>
> I thought so.
> So, that leaves us with TLP.  Back to square one.
>
>
>
> Gilles
>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Gilles 

 wrote:

 On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:51:36 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
>
> Excuse me?
>>
>>
>> See inline.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gilles 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all.
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:01:13 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>> I thought this had been made clear.  Several months Commons voted to
>>>
 make Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people involved
 with Commons Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for
them,
 so they forked the project and left, effectively voiding the TLP
vote
 since the proposed PMC is no longer valid.  There is one person
left
 who was very involved in Commons Math and a few other people who
have
 expressed interest in joining the new community.

 So this is a situation where we have an already existing code base
 where a lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a bit of
 it.  The new group of people who are interested are trying to
 determine how they should 

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Gilles]

On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 11:00:34 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Gilles 


wrote:


...
I'm asking, again, whether I need to initiate a VOTE that would 
allow me
to set up a workspace ("git", etc.) and transfer some code from CM 
over

there.



Nothing is stopping you from setting something up.  Github is usually 
the

easiest way.

It doesn't sound like that is what you want, however. I don't 
understand

why not.


And I don't understand that Apache would indeed prefer that code be 
forked

rather than evolved here...

It may be that incubation is a good thing for Commons Math, but it 
doesn't
seem valid to say that incubation is necessary because CM is being 
kicked

out of Commons.



Never said so.



Hmm... I must have misunderstood the comment about CM not being 
interested

in hosting "these components".


Commons is NOT interested in hosting the new components.
That much was made clear in Matt Benson's last post. [Maybe not 
cross-posted

to the incubator's ML.]


There is a confusion here: *I* say that CM is dead.



Strong words. Such statements are often frustrating to others.


Not strong, just factual.

Maybe it will be revived in the future.
Until then, I proposed to *do* something while the others seem to only
want to wait.
Strange that the latter proposal seems more acceptable than mine.


It does
sound like the community has dwindled, perhaps beyond repair.


It sure sounds like it.
In fewer words: CM is dead.

The development situation *will* change because the context *has* 
changed

(unsupported code). CM cannot go on as it did before the fork.



You can never go home. No project stays the same.


Well, some people in CM for years did their best to avoid change.
I didn't like that view and argue with them because they were
important contributors to CM.

I still have to argue, but now with non-contributors.
*This* makes no sense.

Everybody (developers, users, Commons PMC) would be better off with 
a
selected set of new (supported) components because this is something 
we

can easily do *now* (RERO, etc.).



This was your assertion in the long email thread. It seemed that 
there was

significant counter-positions.


By non-contributors, using arguments that do not fit the CM history.

I'm OK to go through the incubator to do that; but I don't see that 
it
is an easier path.  Surely it looks longer.  And it seems that even 
the

incubator people doubt that it will lead anywhere.



The incubator is for building community and adapting to Apache. If 
you
don't have a seed community, then incubator is the wrong place. You 
need to

have more than just you.


That's fair, but there are a few others; that was mentioned.



Given the uncertain outcome, going through the incubator would be an
attempt at rethinking the development of the currently unsupported
code.  See e.g.
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-172
[Or is that out of scope for an incubation proposal?]



Incubator is not a place to rethink code. It is primarily for 
building

community.


I thought so.
So, that leaves us with TLP.  Back to square one.


Gilles




On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Gilles 


wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:51:36 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:


Excuse me?


See inline.



On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gilles 


wrote:

Hi all.



On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:01:13 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:

I thought this had been made clear.  Several months Commons 
voted to


make Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people 
involved
with Commons Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for 
them,
so they forked the project and left, effectively voiding the 
TLP vote
since the proposed PMC is no longer valid.  There is one person 
left
who was very involved in Commons Math and a few other people 
who have

expressed interest in joining the new community.

So this is a situation where we have an already existing code 
base
where a lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a 
bit of

it.  The new group of people who are interested are trying to
determine how they should move forward. There is some talk of 
breaking
Commons Math into smaller components and possibly dropping some 
where

there is no one to maintain it.


The "Commons" project not being interested in hosting those

components,
is the "incubator" a good place for the developers wishing to go 
in

that
direction?


Perhaps before we move to next steps, could you provide some 
links to

the
discussion where it was decided that Commons is not interested in
hosting
these components?



I proposed to concretely examine this possibility in more than
one message:
  http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp
  http://markmail.org/message/3gupcednhqtcfepw
  http://markmail.org/message/3kob7djjicax6rgn
  http://markmail.org/message/7rb2mxq7hhwzykvr

And again in another thread:
  

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Ted Dunning]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Gilles 
wrote:

> ...
> I'm asking, again, whether I need to initiate a VOTE that would allow me
> to set up a workspace ("git", etc.) and transfer some code from CM over
> there.
>

Nothing is stopping you from setting something up.  Github is usually the
easiest way.

It doesn't sound like that is what you want, however. I don't understand
why not.


>
> It may be that incubation is a good thing for Commons Math, but it doesn't
>> seem valid to say that incubation is necessary because CM is being kicked
>> out of Commons.
>>
>
> Never said so.
>

Hmm... I must have misunderstood the comment about CM not being interested
in hosting "these components".


> There is a confusion here: *I* say that CM is dead.
>

Strong words. Such statements are often frustrating to others. It does
sound like the community has dwindled, perhaps beyond repair.

The development situation *will* change because the context *has* changed
> (unsupported code). CM cannot go on as it did before the fork.
>

You can never go home. No project stays the same.


> Everybody (developers, users, Commons PMC) would be better off with a
> selected set of new (supported) components because this is something we
> can easily do *now* (RERO, etc.).
>

This was your assertion in the long email thread. It seemed that there was
significant counter-positions.


> I'm OK to go through the incubator to do that; but I don't see that it
> is an easier path.  Surely it looks longer.  And it seems that even the
> incubator people doubt that it will lead anywhere.
>

The incubator is for building community and adapting to Apache. If you
don't have a seed community, then incubator is the wrong place. You need to
have more than just you.



>
> Given the uncertain outcome, going through the incubator would be an
> attempt at rethinking the development of the currently unsupported
> code.  See e.g.
>   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-172
> [Or is that out of scope for an incubation proposal?]


Incubator is not a place to rethink code. It is primarily for building
community.


>
>
>
> Gilles
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Gilles 
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:51:36 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
>>>
>>> Excuse me?

 See inline.



 On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gilles 
 wrote:

 Hi all.

>
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:01:13 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> I thought this had been made clear.  Several months Commons voted to
>
>> make Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people involved
>> with Commons Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for them,
>> so they forked the project and left, effectively voiding the TLP vote
>> since the proposed PMC is no longer valid.  There is one person left
>> who was very involved in Commons Math and a few other people who have
>> expressed interest in joining the new community.
>>
>> So this is a situation where we have an already existing code base
>> where a lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a bit of
>> it.  The new group of people who are interested are trying to
>> determine how they should move forward. There is some talk of breaking
>> Commons Math into smaller components and possibly dropping some where
>> there is no one to maintain it.
>>
>>
>> The "Commons" project not being interested in hosting those
> components,
> is the "incubator" a good place for the developers wishing to go in
> that
> direction?
>
>
> Perhaps before we move to next steps, could you provide some links to
 the
 discussion where it was decided that Commons is not interested in
 hosting
 these components?


>>> I proposed to concretely examine this possibility in more than
>>> one message:
>>>   http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp
>>>   http://markmail.org/message/3gupcednhqtcfepw
>>>   http://markmail.org/message/3kob7djjicax6rgn
>>>   http://markmail.org/message/7rb2mxq7hhwzykvr
>>>
>>> And again in another thread:
>>>   http://markmail.org/message/fnlta2ttfne3aj5f
>>>
>>>
>>> What's the next step?
>
>
> Let's get to a common understanding of what went before.


>>> Even that seems impossible. :-(
>>>
>>>
>>> Gilles
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Gilles]

Hi.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:01:20 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:

Gilles,

Thanks for links.

I just read that (long-winded) thread and I see no consensus that 
"Commons

project is not being interested in hosting those components".


In line with what I wrote previously, there isn't any consensus on 
anything

within Commons.

I'm asking, again, whether I need to initiate a VOTE that would allow 
me

to set up a workspace ("git", etc.) and transfer some code from CM over
there.
Or can I jut do it?  [Some help with doing that is most welcome.]

It may be that incubation is a good thing for Commons Math, but it 
doesn't
seem valid to say that incubation is necessary because CM is being 
kicked

out of Commons.


Never said so.

There is a confusion here: *I* say that CM is dead.

It was dead already in early February but nobody noticed because *I*
(alone) continued to answer the ML, comment on JIRA reports and commit
code.

Why I was alone doing that became clear when Luc announced his 
resignation

and the fork.

The development situation *will* change because the context *has* 
changed

(unsupported code).
CM cannot go on as it did before the fork.

Everybody (developers, users, Commons PMC) would be better off with a
selected set of new (supported) components because this is something we
can easily do *now* (RERO, etc.).

I'm OK to go through the incubator to do that; but I don't see that it
is an easier path.  Surely it looks longer.  And it seems that even the
incubator people doubt that it will lead anywhere.

Given the uncertain outcome, going through the incubator would be an
attempt at rethinking the development of the currently unsupported
code.  See e.g.
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-172
[Or is that out of scope for an incubation proposal?]


Gilles

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Gilles 


wrote:


On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:51:36 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:


Excuse me?

See inline.



On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gilles 


wrote:

Hi all.


On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:01:13 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:

I thought this had been made clear.  Several months Commons voted 
to
make Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people 
involved
with Commons Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for 
them,
so they forked the project and left, effectively voiding the TLP 
vote
since the proposed PMC is no longer valid.  There is one person 
left
who was very involved in Commons Math and a few other people who 
have

expressed interest in joining the new community.

So this is a situation where we have an already existing code 
base
where a lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a bit 
of

it.  The new group of people who are interested are trying to
determine how they should move forward. There is some talk of 
breaking
Commons Math into smaller components and possibly dropping some 
where

there is no one to maintain it.


The "Commons" project not being interested in hosting those 
components,
is the "incubator" a good place for the developers wishing to go 
in that

direction?


Perhaps before we move to next steps, could you provide some links 
to the
discussion where it was decided that Commons is not interested in 
hosting

these components?



I proposed to concretely examine this possibility in more than
one message:
  http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp
  http://markmail.org/message/3gupcednhqtcfepw
  http://markmail.org/message/3kob7djjicax6rgn
  http://markmail.org/message/7rb2mxq7hhwzykvr

And again in another thread:
  http://markmail.org/message/fnlta2ttfne3aj5f



What's the next step?



Let's get to a common understanding of what went before.



Even that seems impossible. :-(


Gilles




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





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

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Ted Dunning]

Gilles,

Thanks for links.

I just read that (long-winded) thread and I see no consensus that "Commons
project is not being interested in hosting those components".

It may be that incubation is a good thing for Commons Math, but it doesn't
seem valid to say that incubation is necessary because CM is being kicked
out of Commons.



On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Gilles 
wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:51:36 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
>> Excuse me?
>>
>> See inline.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gilles 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:01:13 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>> I thought this had been made clear.  Several months Commons voted to
 make Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people involved
 with Commons Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for them,
 so they forked the project and left, effectively voiding the TLP vote
 since the proposed PMC is no longer valid.  There is one person left
 who was very involved in Commons Math and a few other people who have
 expressed interest in joining the new community.

 So this is a situation where we have an already existing code base
 where a lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a bit of
 it.  The new group of people who are interested are trying to
 determine how they should move forward. There is some talk of breaking
 Commons Math into smaller components and possibly dropping some where
 there is no one to maintain it.


>>> The "Commons" project not being interested in hosting those components,
>>> is the "incubator" a good place for the developers wishing to go in that
>>> direction?
>>>
>>>
>> Perhaps before we move to next steps, could you provide some links to the
>> discussion where it was decided that Commons is not interested in hosting
>> these components?
>>
>
> I proposed to concretely examine this possibility in more than
> one message:
>   http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp
>   http://markmail.org/message/3gupcednhqtcfepw
>   http://markmail.org/message/3kob7djjicax6rgn
>   http://markmail.org/message/7rb2mxq7hhwzykvr
>
> And again in another thread:
>   http://markmail.org/message/fnlta2ttfne3aj5f
>
>
>>> What's the next step?
>>>
>>>
>> Let's get to a common understanding of what went before.
>>
>
> Even that seems impossible. :-(
>
>
> Gilles
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Gilles]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:51:36 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:

Excuse me?

See inline.



On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gilles 


wrote:


Hi all.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:01:13 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:

I thought this had been made clear.  Several months Commons voted 
to

make Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people involved
with Commons Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for 
them,
so they forked the project and left, effectively voiding the TLP 
vote
since the proposed PMC is no longer valid.  There is one person 
left
who was very involved in Commons Math and a few other people who 
have

expressed interest in joining the new community.

So this is a situation where we have an already existing code base
where a lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a bit of
it.  The new group of people who are interested are trying to
determine how they should move forward. There is some talk of 
breaking
Commons Math into smaller components and possibly dropping some 
where

there is no one to maintain it.



The "Commons" project not being interested in hosting those 
components,
is the "incubator" a good place for the developers wishing to go in 
that

direction?



Perhaps before we move to next steps, could you provide some links to 
the
discussion where it was decided that Commons is not interested in 
hosting

these components?


I proposed to concretely examine this possibility in more than
one message:
  http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp
  http://markmail.org/message/3gupcednhqtcfepw
  http://markmail.org/message/3kob7djjicax6rgn
  http://markmail.org/message/7rb2mxq7hhwzykvr

And again in another thread:
  http://markmail.org/message/fnlta2ttfne3aj5f



What's the next step?



Let's get to a common understanding of what went before.


Even that seems impossible. :-(


Gilles


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

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Ted Dunning]

Excuse me?

See inline.



On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gilles 
wrote:

> Hi all.
>
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:01:13 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> I thought this had been made clear.  Several months Commons voted to
>> make Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people involved
>> with Commons Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for them,
>> so they forked the project and left, effectively voiding the TLP vote
>> since the proposed PMC is no longer valid.  There is one person left
>> who was very involved in Commons Math and a few other people who have
>> expressed interest in joining the new community.
>>
>> So this is a situation where we have an already existing code base
>> where a lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a bit of
>> it.  The new group of people who are interested are trying to
>> determine how they should move forward. There is some talk of breaking
>> Commons Math into smaller components and possibly dropping some where
>> there is no one to maintain it.
>>
>
> The "Commons" project not being interested in hosting those components,
> is the "incubator" a good place for the developers wishing to go in that
> direction?
>

Perhaps before we move to next steps, could you provide some links to the
discussion where it was decided that Commons is not interested in hosting
these components?


>
> What's the next step?
>

Let's get to a common understanding of what went before.

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Gilles]

Hi all.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:01:13 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:

I thought this had been made clear.  Several months Commons voted to
make Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people involved
with Commons Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for them,
so they forked the project and left, effectively voiding the TLP vote
since the proposed PMC is no longer valid.  There is one person left
who was very involved in Commons Math and a few other people who have
expressed interest in joining the new community.

So this is a situation where we have an already existing code base
where a lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a bit of
it.  The new group of people who are interested are trying to
determine how they should move forward. There is some talk of 
breaking

Commons Math into smaller components and possibly dropping some where
there is no one to maintain it.


The "Commons" project not being interested in hosting those components,
is the "incubator" a good place for the developers wishing to go in 
that

direction?

What's the next step?


Regards,
Gilles


Ralph

On Jun 11, 2016, at 6:21 PM, Niclas Hedhman  
wrote:


If you have a functioning community around Commons Math already, why 
do you

feel you need Incubation?

People on a Math TLP would come out of the Commons PMC and simply 
submit a
Board Resolution, and I doubt that there would be any objects. There 
are no
legal concerns, no community training, no need for release 
management

training, and so on...

Or are you looking at a situation where the Commons community has no
interest in Math subproject, and need new blood?


Cheers
Niclas

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:25 PM, James Carman 


wrote:

We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just 
wanted to
gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP 
by way
of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name 
may be),
would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community 
prior to
becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in 
the

ring?

p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks 
there who

are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice.





--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java




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

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Ted Dunning]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:21 AM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> Yep absolutely.  I don't think the incubator has ever rejected a project?
>

We have discouraged some submissions. But I have never seen a formal
submission be denied.

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[John D. Ament]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:17 PM Ted Dunning  wrote:

> Jochen,
>
> The need to build the community (nearly) from scratch is definitely NOT a
> reason for rejection. It is simply a risk factor that must be mitigated to
> succeed in incubation.
>

Yep absolutely.  I don't think the incubator has ever rejected a project?


>
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Jochen Wiedmann <
> jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:29 PM, John D. Ament 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to.
> We
> > > have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community
> > doesn't
> > > work.  It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do.
> >
> > Understood. On the other hand: Would that be sufficient reason for
> > rejecting a proposal? ("It didn't
> > work in the past" != "It won't work in this case")
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Ted Dunning]

Jochen,

The need to build the community (nearly) from scratch is definitely NOT a
reason for rejection. It is simply a risk factor that must be mitigated to
succeed in incubation.


On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Jochen Wiedmann  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:29 PM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
>
> > We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to.  We
> > have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community
> doesn't
> > work.  It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do.
>
> Understood. On the other hand: Would that be sufficient reason for
> rejecting a proposal? ("It didn't
> work in the past" != "It won't work in this case")
>
>
> --
> 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: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Jochen Wiedmann]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:29 PM, John D. Ament  wrote:

> We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to.  We
> have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community doesn't
> work.  It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do.

Understood. On the other hand: Would that be sufficient reason for
rejecting a proposal? ("It didn't
work in the past" != "It won't work in this case")


-- 
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: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Ted Dunning]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:06 PM, James Carman 
wrote:

> That's what I figured. We could just go straight to TLP I suppose, if you
> guys honestly don't think the Incubator would help. Is there any harm going
> through the incubator?
>

No harm at all. It will increase visibility to a particularly swath of
ASF-ians.

I don't want to reignite the "straight to TLP"
> debate.
>

Yeah debates not helpful in most cases.


>
> We honestly need some help/advice getting more folks involved. There have
> been a ton of contributions through the the years, but most have been of
> the "drive-by" variety. I believe it's a fairly popular library, even among
> some the other Commons components.
>

I have been just such a drive-by contributor. And I was glad that the folks
who maintained the product did so, although the reception I got the first
time I came to commons math turned me off of Apache in general for several
years.

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[James Carman]

That's what I figured. We could just go straight to TLP I suppose, if you
guys honestly don't think the Incubator would help. Is there any harm going
through the incubator? I don't want to reignite the "straight to TLP"
debate.

We honestly need some help/advice getting more folks involved. There have
been a ton of contributions through the the years, but most have been of
the "drive-by" variety. I believe it's a fairly popular library, even among
some the other Commons components.

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 5:58 PM Ted Dunning  wrote:

> I don't think that there is a good definition of empty. The smaller the
> initial community, the larger the effort to bootstrap is the observation,
> but we don't really have a magic rule to apply.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:55 PM, James Carman 
> wrote:
>
> > What do we consider "empty"? Is there some observed "critical mass"?
> Right
> > now I believe we are 4 (to contribute), but they have had users for a
> long
> > time.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 5:29 PM John D. Ament 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Generally speaking, incubation is to nurture a community to adopting
> the
> > > Apache Way.  This includes self governance, community growth and
> > licensing
> > > policies.
> > >
> > > We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to.
> We
> > > have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community
> > doesn't
> > > work.  It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do.
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:07 PM Jochen Wiedmann <
> > jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Ted Dunning 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Looking back through the discussion, it is a bit of a problem that
> > one
> > > of
> > > > > the major reasons given for the fork is that the team thought that
> > they
> > > > > didn't have a large enough PMC and that incubation wouldn't get
> them
> > > > enough
> > > > > additional contributors. That made it seem like the project should
> go
> > > > > forward without meeting Apache requirements (i.e. outside).
> > > > >
> > > > > Is the situation really that different now that a vastly diminished
> > > team
> > > > is
> > > > > likely to benefit from incubation enough to form a viable TLP?
> > > > >
> > > > > (I hate that this sounds negative ... it is a real question)
> > > >
> > > > We can't tell you. It is just, that some of us (including me) have
> the
> > > > feeling/opinion, that going through the Incubator is the path, where
> > > > the chances are best to attract new committers.
> > > >
> > > > 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: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Ted Dunning]

I don't think that there is a good definition of empty. The smaller the
initial community, the larger the effort to bootstrap is the observation,
but we don't really have a magic rule to apply.



On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:55 PM, James Carman 
wrote:

> What do we consider "empty"? Is there some observed "critical mass"? Right
> now I believe we are 4 (to contribute), but they have had users for a long
> time.
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 5:29 PM John D. Ament 
> wrote:
>
> > Generally speaking, incubation is to nurture a community to adopting the
> > Apache Way.  This includes self governance, community growth and
> licensing
> > policies.
> >
> > We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to.  We
> > have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community
> doesn't
> > work.  It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:07 PM Jochen Wiedmann <
> jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Ted Dunning 
> > > wrote:
> > > > Looking back through the discussion, it is a bit of a problem that
> one
> > of
> > > > the major reasons given for the fork is that the team thought that
> they
> > > > didn't have a large enough PMC and that incubation wouldn't get them
> > > enough
> > > > additional contributors. That made it seem like the project should go
> > > > forward without meeting Apache requirements (i.e. outside).
> > > >
> > > > Is the situation really that different now that a vastly diminished
> > team
> > > is
> > > > likely to benefit from incubation enough to form a viable TLP?
> > > >
> > > > (I hate that this sounds negative ... it is a real question)
> > >
> > > We can't tell you. It is just, that some of us (including me) have the
> > > feeling/opinion, that going through the Incubator is the path, where
> > > the chances are best to attract new committers.
> > >
> > > 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: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[James Carman]

What do we consider "empty"? Is there some observed "critical mass"? Right
now I believe we are 4 (to contribute), but they have had users for a long
time.

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 5:29 PM John D. Ament  wrote:

> Generally speaking, incubation is to nurture a community to adopting the
> Apache Way.  This includes self governance, community growth and licensing
> policies.
>
> We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to.  We
> have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community doesn't
> work.  It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:07 PM Jochen Wiedmann  >
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Ted Dunning 
> > wrote:
> > > Looking back through the discussion, it is a bit of a problem that one
> of
> > > the major reasons given for the fork is that the team thought that they
> > > didn't have a large enough PMC and that incubation wouldn't get them
> > enough
> > > additional contributors. That made it seem like the project should go
> > > forward without meeting Apache requirements (i.e. outside).
> > >
> > > Is the situation really that different now that a vastly diminished
> team
> > is
> > > likely to benefit from incubation enough to form a viable TLP?
> > >
> > > (I hate that this sounds negative ... it is a real question)
> >
> > We can't tell you. It is just, that some of us (including me) have the
> > feeling/opinion, that going through the Incubator is the path, where
> > the chances are best to attract new committers.
> >
> > 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: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Ted Dunning]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:29 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to.  We
> have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community doesn't
> work.  It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do.
>

Frankly, the exceptions to this observation (such as Drill) pretty much
reinforce the conclusion. Drill managed to build a community, but only
because of a LOT of effort on the part of the founders of the project.

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[John D. Ament]

Generally speaking, incubation is to nurture a community to adopting the
Apache Way.  This includes self governance, community growth and licensing
policies.

We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to.  We
have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community doesn't
work.  It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do.

John

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:07 PM Jochen Wiedmann 
wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Ted Dunning 
> wrote:
> > Looking back through the discussion, it is a bit of a problem that one of
> > the major reasons given for the fork is that the team thought that they
> > didn't have a large enough PMC and that incubation wouldn't get them
> enough
> > additional contributors. That made it seem like the project should go
> > forward without meeting Apache requirements (i.e. outside).
> >
> > Is the situation really that different now that a vastly diminished team
> is
> > likely to benefit from incubation enough to form a viable TLP?
> >
> > (I hate that this sounds negative ... it is a real question)
>
> We can't tell you. It is just, that some of us (including me) have the
> feeling/opinion, that going through the Incubator is the path, where
> the chances are best to attract new committers.
>
> 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: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Jochen Wiedmann]

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 12:25 PM, James Carman
 wrote:
> We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted to
> gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by way
> of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may be),
> would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to
> becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the ring?
>
> p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there who
> are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice.

As I already wrote elsewhere: I could (and would) put an IPMC hat on.
(And a mentors hat as well.)


-- 
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: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Jochen Wiedmann]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
> Looking back through the discussion, it is a bit of a problem that one of
> the major reasons given for the fork is that the team thought that they
> didn't have a large enough PMC and that incubation wouldn't get them enough
> additional contributors. That made it seem like the project should go
> forward without meeting Apache requirements (i.e. outside).
>
> Is the situation really that different now that a vastly diminished team is
> likely to benefit from incubation enough to form a viable TLP?
>
> (I hate that this sounds negative ... it is a real question)

We can't tell you. It is just, that some of us (including me) have the
feeling/opinion, that going through the Incubator is the path, where
the chances are best to attract new committers.

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: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Ted Dunning]

Looking back through the discussion, it is a bit of a problem that one of
the major reasons given for the fork is that the team thought that they
didn't have a large enough PMC and that incubation wouldn't get them enough
additional contributors. That made it seem like the project should go
forward without meeting Apache requirements (i.e. outside).

Is the situation really that different now that a vastly diminished team is
likely to benefit from incubation enough to form a viable TLP?

(I hate that this sounds negative ... it is a real question)



On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Ralph Goers 
wrote:

> I thought this had been made clear.  Several months Commons voted to make
> Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people involved with Commons
> Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for them, so they forked the
> project and left, effectively voiding the TLP vote since the proposed PMC
> is no longer valid.  There is one person left who was very involved in
> Commons Math and a few other people who have expressed interest in joining
> the new community.
>
> So this is a situation where we have an already existing code base where a
> lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a bit of it.  The new
> group of people who are interested are trying to determine how they should
> move forward. There is some talk of breaking Commons Math into smaller
> components and possibly dropping some where there is no one to maintain it.
>
> Ralph
>
> > On Jun 11, 2016, at 6:21 PM, Niclas Hedhman  wrote:
> >
> > If you have a functioning community around Commons Math already, why do
> you
> > feel you need Incubation?
> >
> > People on a Math TLP would come out of the Commons PMC and simply submit
> a
> > Board Resolution, and I doubt that there would be any objects. There are
> no
> > legal concerns, no community training, no need for release management
> > training, and so on...
> >
> > Or are you looking at a situation where the Commons community has no
> > interest in Math subproject, and need new blood?
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> > Niclas
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:25 PM, James Carman <
> ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted
> to
> >> gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by
> way
> >> of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may
> be),
> >> would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to
> >> becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the
> >> ring?
> >>
> >> p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there
> who
> >> are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> > http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Ralph Goers]

I thought this had been made clear.  Several months Commons voted to make Math 
a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people involved with Commons Math 
felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for them, so they forked the project 
and left, effectively voiding the TLP vote since the proposed PMC is no longer 
valid.  There is one person left who was very involved in Commons Math and a 
few other people who have expressed interest in joining the new community.  

So this is a situation where we have an already existing code base where a lot 
of the people left are not familiar with quite a bit of it.  The new group of 
people who are interested are trying to determine how they should move forward. 
There is some talk of breaking Commons Math into smaller components and 
possibly dropping some where there is no one to maintain it.  

Ralph

> On Jun 11, 2016, at 6:21 PM, Niclas Hedhman  wrote:
> 
> If you have a functioning community around Commons Math already, why do you
> feel you need Incubation?
> 
> People on a Math TLP would come out of the Commons PMC and simply submit a
> Board Resolution, and I doubt that there would be any objects. There are no
> legal concerns, no community training, no need for release management
> training, and so on...
> 
> Or are you looking at a situation where the Commons community has no
> interest in Math subproject, and need new blood?
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Niclas
> 
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:25 PM, James Carman 
> wrote:
> 
>> We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted to
>> gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by way
>> of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may be),
>> would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to
>> becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the
>> ring?
>> 
>> p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there who
>> are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java



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

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Niclas Hedhman]

If you have a functioning community around Commons Math already, why do you
feel you need Incubation?

People on a Math TLP would come out of the Commons PMC and simply submit a
Board Resolution, and I doubt that there would be any objects. There are no
legal concerns, no community training, no need for release management
training, and so on...

Or are you looking at a situation where the Commons community has no
interest in Math subproject, and need new blood?


Cheers
Niclas

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:25 PM, James Carman 
wrote:

> We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted to
> gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by way
> of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may be),
> would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to
> becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the
> ring?
>
> p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there who
> are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice.
>



-- 
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java

RE: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Martin Gainty]

Afternoon James
I would ping Bill Barker, Mikkel Andersen, Sebastian Brissard or any math 
committer from the base project
http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-math/team-list.html
HTH
Martin 
__ 

   


> From: ja...@carmanconsulting.com
> Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 16:12:48 +
> Subject: Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
> To: dennis.hamil...@acm.org; general@incubator.apache.org
> 
> I meant PPMC, yeah.
> 
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 12:11 PM Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > Interesting.  Does this mean migrating Commons Math to a math PPMC (not
> > IPMC)?
> >
> > Would the scope be the same?
> >
> > Would Commons Math go to the Attic?
> >
> > Is there some problem that this is meant to solve?  How is it a solution?
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
> > PS: I have labored through the dev-commons thread on [Math] Commons Math
> > (r)evolution, and a few other of the June math-related posts.  I think
> > going through the effort to create an Incubation proposal would be useful.
> > You will have to come to grips, and clarity, on whether and to what extent
> > this is effectively an ASF-internal fork.  Not that there is anything wrong
> > with that.  It is leaving it unresolved that strikes me as solving nothing.
> >
> > PPS: Not cross-posting.  The interested parties may need to come to
> > general-incubator to begin appreciating for themselves what is involved.
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: James Carman [mailto:ja...@carmanconsulting.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 03:26
> > > To: Commons Developers List <d...@commons.apache.org>;
> > > general@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
> > >
> > > We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted
> > > to
> > > gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by
> > > way
> > > of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may
> > > be),
> > > would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to
> > > becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the
> > > ring?
> > >
> > > p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there
> > > who
> > > are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice.
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
  

Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[James Carman]

I meant PPMC, yeah.

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 12:11 PM Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
wrote:

> Interesting.  Does this mean migrating Commons Math to a math PPMC (not
> IPMC)?
>
> Would the scope be the same?
>
> Would Commons Math go to the Attic?
>
> Is there some problem that this is meant to solve?  How is it a solution?
>
>  - Dennis
>
> PS: I have labored through the dev-commons thread on [Math] Commons Math
> (r)evolution, and a few other of the June math-related posts.  I think
> going through the effort to create an Incubation proposal would be useful.
> You will have to come to grips, and clarity, on whether and to what extent
> this is effectively an ASF-internal fork.  Not that there is anything wrong
> with that.  It is leaving it unresolved that strikes me as solving nothing.
>
> PPS: Not cross-posting.  The interested parties may need to come to
> general-incubator to begin appreciating for themselves what is involved.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: James Carman [mailto:ja...@carmanconsulting.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 03:26
> > To: Commons Developers List <d...@commons.apache.org>;
> > general@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
> >
> > We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted
> > to
> > gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by
> > way
> > of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may
> > be),
> > would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to
> > becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the
> > ring?
> >
> > p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there
> > who
> > are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

RE: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Interesting.  Does this mean migrating Commons Math to a math PPMC (not IPMC)? 

Would the scope be the same?

Would Commons Math go to the Attic?  

Is there some problem that this is meant to solve?  How is it a solution?

 - Dennis 

PS: I have labored through the dev-commons thread on [Math] Commons Math 
(r)evolution, and a few other of the June math-related posts.  I think going 
through the effort to create an Incubation proposal would be useful.  You will 
have to come to grips, and clarity, on whether and to what extent this is 
effectively an ASF-internal fork.  Not that there is anything wrong with that.  
It is leaving it unresolved that strikes me as solving nothing.

PPS: Not cross-posting.  The interested parties may need to come to 
general-incubator to begin appreciating for themselves what is involved.

> -Original Message-
> From: James Carman [mailto:ja...@carmanconsulting.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 03:26
> To: Commons Developers List <d...@commons.apache.org>;
> general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
> 
> We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted
> to
> gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by
> way
> of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may
> be),
> would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to
> becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the
> ring?
> 
> p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there
> who
> are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice.


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

[ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?

[James Carman]

We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted to
gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by way
of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may be),
would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to
becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the ring?

p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there who
are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice.