You bring up good points (aside from the "scratch" part maybe). I called for a VOTE again because it was suggested that the previous vote should be voided.
I'm open to suggestions. I'm just trying to keep this thing from dying and I figured the Incubator could help us. We haven't done a great job in building a healthy community around Math in Commons this far, so I'm looking for alternatives. If it stays here, it is in all likelihood dead. The one core person we have left has been shot down on almost everything he has tried to do it seems. I don't really have any dog in this race. I don't know any of these people personally (I did meet Phil at ACNA last year and really enjoyed that) , but I do feel like we really haven't given Gilles a very fair time here and in the spirit of a "do-acracy", I felt compelled to help, since he really is all that is left. I have always felt like Math deserved its own TLP, anyway, and we voted at one point to go there. At this point, if the PMC really feels like leaving well enough alone with Math, I'm fine with that and we can cancel this vote. I do feel, however, that this PMC/Community is "broken" (for lack of a better term) and I have felt that way for quite some time. I haven't felt compelled to contribute code (only oversight) to this project for a long time. Obviously with recent events, something is wrong and we need to come to grips with what that is. I know others share some of my feelings, but I'll let them share should they choose to do so. I'll stop rambling. I'm sure this is enough to ruffle some feathers. On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 5:34 PM Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > -1 (non-binding) > > Reason for objection: > > I think the framing of this vote is confusing. > > 1. There appears to be less ability to go to TLP than there was at the > time the previous motion passed. > > 2. The discussion (but not the [VOTE]) speaks of going to TLP via the > incubator. It has to be one or the other. Propose a podling to Incubator > or propose a TLP to the Board. There is no assurance that a podling will > graduate and it doesn't fit to make that a condition. One could raise the > special circumstances at general-incubator, but I think that works best > with something specific (but malleable) in hand. > > 3. The Incubator is reluctant to start podlings from scratch, as Niall > observes. > > 4. It seems to me that the best first-step on whether incubation is > feasible is to do the work to create an incubation proposal. This will > require certain key factors to be addressed. Not the least is how the code > base will be imported and, because it is from an Apache Project, how it > will be left behind too. That definition can start here and then be > refined on the general-incubator list where one will need to find a > champion (perhaps), mentors, and a sufficient body of initial committers. > It is important for those who would form the initial core for a podling to > learn enough about how incubation works. > > - Dennis > > Disclosure: > > I have no idea how this might go. I am not a Commons Math subject-matter > expert, even though computational mathematics has some appeal for me. I > still have my bound "Collect Algorithms from ACM, Volume 1: Algorithms > 1-220." I did not hold onto the microfiche of later algorithms that were > published in conjunction with the ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software > (TOMS). The latest (Algorithm 959) is interesting although I have no idea > where to find the code and am dismayed that it is a library under the GPL. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pember...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 11:56 > > To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)... > > > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:39 AM, James Carman > > <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> > > wrote: > > > > > We would take math through the incubator in order to build community > > around > > > it first. If we fail to do so, then we can decide its fate at that > > time. We > > > haven't done a good job attracting new people to math here at all. It > > has > > > always been maintained primarily by a select few. > > > > > > > It made sense to me when there were 6 committers working on Math, but I > > think given the exodus of most of those people to hipparchus then it > > would > > be better to wait a while for the dust to settle to see what happens > > with > > Math. > > > > I also don't think the incubator is a good place for starting a > > community > > from scratch (i.e. one or two man projects) - if you have a nucleus of > > at > > least a few people, then it has much better chance of success. > > > > So for me, I'm -1 unless there are enough Mathematicians who want to > > work > > on the code to give it a chance as an incubator project. > > > > Niall > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:36 AM Ralph Goers > > <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > -1 (binding) > > > > > > > > At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC. > > > > > > > > Ralph > > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 2016, at 8:47 PM, James Carman > > <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Since it has been suggested that the previously passing vote > > should be > > > > > voided, I propose we vote again to move Commons Math to a TLP: > > > > > > > > > > +1 - Yes, move Commons Math to a TLP > > > > > -1 - No, do not move Commons Math to a TLP > > > > > > > > > > The vote will remain open for 72 hours. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > > > James Carman > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > - > > > > 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 > >
