Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:10:56 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Le 18/04/2017 à 15:42, Gilles a écrit : And that's why "do-ocracy" should really matter more than "opinion". And how do you reach consensus if you aren't open to others opinions? Doing and not listening is just a variant of

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

Le 18/04/2017 à 15:42, Gilles a écrit : > And that's why "do-ocracy" should really matter more than > "opinion". And how do you reach consensus if you aren't open to others opinions? Doing and not listening is just a variant of dictatorship, that's not my vision of an open community. Emmanuel

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

Hello Stefan. On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:15:20 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: [sorry, been offline for a few days and don't want to re-start a thread that seems to have come to a conclusion, just need to clarify one thing] I think that you have highlighted why "Commons" ways did not work for CM.

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

[sorry, been offline for a few days and don't want to re-start a thread that seems to have come to a conclusion, just need to clarify one thing] On 2017-04-14, Gilles wrote: > On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:34:22 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> On 2017-04-13, Gilles wrote: >>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

On Apr 17, 2017 3:32 PM, "Gilles" wrote: Hi Ralph. On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:55:49 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote: > Gilles, > > What is your vision on where things should end up? Can you identify > what new commons sub-projects we will have? If it is just 3 or 4 I >

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

Hi Ralph. On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:55:49 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote: Gilles, What is your vision on where things should end up? Can you identify what new commons sub-projects we will have? If it is just 3 or 4 I have no problem with that. We have * RNG We will have * Numbers We might have

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

On Apr 16, 2017 10:56 AM, "Ralph Goers" wrote: Gilles, What is your vision on where things should end up? Can you identify what new commons sub-projects we will have? If it is just 3 or 4 I have no problem with that. But if we are going to have 10 sub-projects then

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

Gilles, What is your vision on where things should end up? Can you identify what new commons sub-projects we will have? If it is just 3 or 4 I have no problem with that. But if we are going to have 10 sub-projects then I really feel like it should be done as: A: Commons Math with Commons

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

Hi Rob. On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 11:49:32 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote: I suppose that I’ll chime in here. Do pardon my delinquency in responding to the list. I tend to be fairly agnostic on these sorts of matters because: (1) I have considerably smaller time in the project than most of you, and (2)

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

Well, as someone with even less time put in than Rob, I'll chime in as well. First, while I wasn't here for it, it is clear that the fork was traumatic for the community. It should be expected there would be a recovery time. I think a lot of positive steps have been taken and given where the

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

I suppose that I’ll chime in here. Do pardon my delinquency in responding to the list. I tend to be fairly agnostic on these sorts of matters because: (1) I have considerably smaller time in the project than most of you, and (2) I have a serially agnostic temperament [personal issue :-)]. So

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 17:51:34 +0200, Oliver Heger wrote: Am 15.04.2017 um 00:15 schrieb Gilles: Hi Oliver. On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:48:26 +0200, Oliver Heger wrote: Hi, Am 14.04.2017 um 17:12 schrieb Gilles: Hi Benedikt. On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:49:25 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote: [...] My

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

Am 15.04.2017 um 00:15 schrieb Gilles: > Hi Oliver. > > On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:48:26 +0200, Oliver Heger wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Am 14.04.2017 um 17:12 schrieb Gilles: >>> Hi Benedikt. >>> >>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:49:25 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote: [...] >>> My personal opinion is,

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

On Apr 14, 2017 12:31 PM, "Gilles" wrote: Emmanuel, On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 19:37:08 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > On 04/14/2017 06:12 PM, Gilles wrote: > > [I can be clearer: I had this issue with Emmanuel, about the >> design and scope of "Commons RNG" (cf. ML

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

It seems to me that some of these issues are likely unavoidable. The comment on this thread that resonated with me most was something like "I don't look at Jiras of projects I don't care about". I could say "I have been guilty of that behavior" but there is IMO nothing wrong with this behavior.

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

Hi Oliver. On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:48:26 +0200, Oliver Heger wrote: Hi, Am 14.04.2017 um 17:12 schrieb Gilles: Hi Benedikt. On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:49:25 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote: [...] My personal opinion is, that neither CM, nor numbers or RNG belong into commons. They are to

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

Hi, Am 14.04.2017 um 17:12 schrieb Gilles: > Hi Benedikt. > > On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:49:25 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote: >> Hi, >> >> sorry for coming late to the table. I think Gary summed it up pretty >> well: >> >> „I see busy people doing what they want when the want in all >> of Commons,

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

Emmanuel, On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 19:37:08 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: On 04/14/2017 06:12 PM, Gilles wrote: [I can be clearer: I had this issue with Emmanuel, about the design and scope of "Commons RNG" (cf. ML archive), and it was acknowledged that "do-ocracy" must prevail over "opinion".]

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

On 04/14/2017 06:12 PM, Gilles wrote: > [I can be clearer: I had this issue with Emmanuel, about the > design and scope of "Commons RNG" (cf. ML archive), and it was > acknowledged that "do-ocracy" must prevail over "opinion".] Well, I had much more than mere "opinions" to offer to RNG, but you

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:54:24 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote: On Apr 14, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Gilles wrote: Regarding the decision to keep CM here at commons: As far as I remember (I’m sure Gilles has the likes to the archives ;-)) the PMC was pretty ambivalent and let

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:34:22 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: On 2017-04-13, Gilles wrote: On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:27 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote: [Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was developed inside CM and most PMC people did not even know about it

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

> On Apr 14, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Gilles wrote: > >> Regarding the decision to keep CM here at commons: As far as I >> remember (I’m sure Gilles has the likes to the archives ;-)) the PMC >> was pretty ambivalent and let it to the CM developers. That group >> decided

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

Hi Benedikt. On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:49:25 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote: Hi, sorry for coming late to the table. I think Gary summed it up pretty well: „I see busy people doing what they want when the want in all of Commons, respectfully and diligently.“ After going through the mails, I

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

As always very well put, Stefan! Stefan Bodewig schrieb am Fr. 14. Apr. 2017 um 16:34: > On 2017-04-13, Gilles wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:27 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > >> On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote: > > >>> [Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

On 2017-04-13, Gilles wrote: > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:27 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote: >>> [Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was developed inside CM and >>> most PMC people did not even know about it (although I was opening >>> JIRA issues all along. Hence

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

Hi, sorry for coming late to the table. I think Gary summed it up pretty well: „I see busy people doing what they want when the want in all of Commons, respectfully and diligently.“ After going through the mails, I still don’t understand how the PMC needs to change it ways in order to move CM

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

Hi Jörg. On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:31:17 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote: Hi Oliver, Oliver Heger wrote: Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles: On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote: Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

Hi. On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:27 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote: [Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was developed inside CM and most PMC people did not even know about it (although I was opening JIRA issues all along. Hence creating a "git" repository is not

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

On 2017-04-13, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Oliver Heger wrote: >> I am fine with Commons RNG and Commons Numbers. >> I would feel uneasy with a significant number of mathematical components >> extracted from [math] that are added to Commons, even if they are small >> and focused. It would seem

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote: > [Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was developed inside CM and > most PMC people did not even know about it (although I was opening > JIRA issues all along. Hence creating a "git" repository is not > futile if it can raise awareness.] By now you've probably

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

Hi Oliver, Oliver Heger wrote: > Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles: >> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >>> On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote: >>> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than having the PMC support its own

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:04:00 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: On Apr 12, 2017 12:41 PM, "Oliver Heger" wrote: Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles: On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote: Do you actually

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

Hi Oliver. On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:41:34 +0200, Oliver Heger wrote: Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles: On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote: Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than having the PMC

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

On Apr 12, 2017 12:41 PM, "Oliver Heger" wrote: Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles: > On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >> On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote: >> >>> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles: > On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >> On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote: >> >>> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than >>> having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it could? >> >> If

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:06:02 +0200, Eric Barnhill wrote: On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Gilles wrote: On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:56:23 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: On 04/12/2017 02:56 PM, Gilles wrote: Yes; and it is good per se, of course. Unforunately, it

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote: Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it could? If nobody is able to maintain commons-math I have no

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote: > Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than > having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it could? If nobody is able to maintain commons-math I have no objection recommending an alternative, especially one that is

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Gilles wrote: > On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:56:23 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > >> On 04/12/2017 02:56 PM, Gilles wrote: >> >> Yes; and it is good per se, of course. Unforunately, it didn't change >>> the Commons Math issue: it's still

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:56:23 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: On 04/12/2017 02:56 PM, Gilles wrote: Yes; and it is good per se, of course. Unforunately, it didn't change the Commons Math issue: it's still unmaintained, and from what I observe on JIRA, it's not going to improve with time (I said

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

Hi Stefan. On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:22:23 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: [sorry for the comments from the peanut gallery, I haven't been following MATH and likely will never contribute anything substantial] On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote: On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:03:05 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

On 04/12/2017 02:56 PM, Gilles wrote: > Yes; and it is good per se, of course. Unforunately, it didn't change > the Commons Math issue: it's still unmaintained, and from what I observe > on JIRA, it's not going to improve with time (I said that much one year > ago and I was right, in hindsight).

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

[sorry for the comments from the peanut gallery, I haven't been following MATH and likely will never contribute anything substantial] On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote: > On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:03:05 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >> What do you expect now that is blocked by the PMC? > With "Commons

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue

Hi Emmanuel. On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:03:05 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: Gilles, I admit I'm not sure to understand what you are complaining about. Last year you complained that you were the last one maintaining commons-math It was not a complaint, but a (sad) fact. and that a monolithic

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue (Was: [DRAFT] Board report)

Gilles, I admit I'm not sure to understand what you are complaining about. Last year you complained that you were the last one maintaining commons-math and that a monolithic component was unsustainable. Since then we got new contributors and smaller components have been spun off commons-math.

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue (Was: [DRAFT] Board report)

Hi Gary. On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:56:09 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:54 AM, Gilles wrote: Hello. Gary, Thank you for mentioning the CM issue. But... [...] ## Health report: [...] - We are still experiencing some growing pains toward

Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue (Was: [DRAFT] Board report)

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:54 AM, Gilles wrote: > Hello. > > Gary, > > Thank you for mentioning the CM issue. > But... > > [...] >> >> ## Health report: >> [...] >> - We are still experiencing some growing pains toward Commons Math 4. >> There >>is a backlog of

[ALL] The Commons Math issue (Was: [DRAFT] Board report)

Hello. Gary, Thank you for mentioning the CM issue. But... [...] ## Health report: [...] - We are still experiencing some growing pains toward Commons Math 4. There is a backlog of issues in JIRA (not unlike other components) but no clear concensus in the community. Do-ocracy is