Being one of the non-participants that Gilles speaks of, perhaps it is easier for me to not have any baggage that filters what I see as perfectly plain actions.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Gilles [mailto:gil...@harfang.homelinux.org] > Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 10:56 > To: dev@commons.apache.org > Subject: Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC? > > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 11:53:37 -0500, Matt Benson wrote: > > On Jun 18, 2016 9:28 AM, "Gilles" <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi. > >> > >> > >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 14:42:46 +0200, Jörg Schaible 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. > >>>> Or can I jut do it? [Some help with doing that is most welcome.] > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -1 (and this is a veto) > >> > >> > >> What are you vetoing? [orcmid] It seems clear to me that Jörg is addressing a unilateral, individual act involving the CM code base. Perhaps after the weekend that can be confirmed. Committers are in a position to veto changes to the code base, and the proposed act can be seen as falling under that. It might be good to wait and discuss the basis of the veto with Jörg and see what, if anything, would cure it. Now, anyone can initiate a [VOTE] so that is not subject to veto. However, resorting to [VOTE]s appears to be a symptom of some sort of community failure. Consensus-seeking is very important and it is odd that there is not some civil way to tease out consensus on what appears to be a sticking point. It would be very healthy to find out where there is consensus already, perhaps on a focused [DISCUSS] or even [PROPOSAL] thread and then see what can be worked out about the sticky parts that the consensus does not extend to. Two more observations as one of the non-participant buttinskies and I will go worry about matters in my particular area of influence: 1. Observation: Going to TLP is not an option based on what I see here. The community question does not get easier for TLP versus incubation. It's not so simple as having enough initial PMC members to be able to approve a release. 2. Observation: At the ASF, "Forking is a Feature." It has already happened once with regard to Commons Math. Individuals have their own concerns and attitudes and hurts about that, but the Foundation has no objection. None. The license allows it and it is OK. Now, forking *within* Apache might seem different although I think, in this case, there is a constraint that is the same as when an external project is forked or contributed into an Apache project. The code that is incorporated in the fork/poddling/TLP code base for an Apache project *must* be willingly offered by its origin project. So you are now back at the previously unsolved problem: what is the consensus at Commons about what is to be done with Commons Math as it is that is actionable by those here? Then what is encouraged with regard to active support in some other venue to the extent that Commons has any stake at all in terms of ability to act? - Dennis --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
