On 2/1/16 7:49 AM, Gilles wrote: > On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 06:49:02 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: >> On 2/1/16 6:24 AM, Gilles wrote: >>> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 06:20:14 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: >>>> Unscientifically, but in the interest of keeping things moving, it >>>> looks to me like just plain "math" is the winner. Any >>>> objections to >>>> moving forward with this name? >>>> >>>> Phil >>> >>> Proposals were not all presented when people gave opinions. >>> A [VOTE] perhaps? >> >> Yes, we could do a poll and if you or others feel that is necessary, >> I will kick it off. It just looked to me like we were close enough >> to consensus on math as the name to make it binary. > > Not if you please take into account my remark below.
OK, I will kick of a poll, including all names suggested in this thread. Phil > >> Do you have >> objections to that name? > > Yes. > > "Math" is (a bit?) overwhelming for a team of 5- people. > > In "Commons" there was the rationale of accepting only "common" > algorithms (although that was fairly fuzzy as a limitation). > Not so with that overly general name. > It's a library that will contain math, yes; all of math, certainly > not. > So the name is just a name; it should point to project, not to a > general concept. > > Gilles > >> Does anyone else prefer to do a poll? >> >> Phil >>> >>> Actually: Who should vote, or not? >>> [Logic would have it that people they do not intend to join >>> development of the new project should not...] >>> >>> Gilles > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
