On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 01:55:12 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 11:00:34 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Gilles
[snip]
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.
[snip]
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.
Since this is now the second time in two weeks that you indirectly
state
that I should keep my mouth, I simply refer here a mail of Phil in
January
2015 on the PMC list about the "PMC member responsibilities".
As such a Commons PMC member you are responsible for *all* of the
components, all its users and the health of the ecosystem these
components
live.
This is a pretext.
Don't pretend that you don't know how unrealistic it is to expect that
anyone will be able to care for all the components.
You didn't move when the situation required it (when I explicitly asked
for the PMC to intervene), so please don't try to teach me a lesson
now!
You seem to care currently for 20% of the code of one component only
ignoring any impact on the ecosystem your action with the other 80%
may
have.
I'm fed up with the smearing.
My "action" has ZERO impact on Commons Math.
It is dead because people (who wanted it to be what it is) have left.
"Commons Math" will stay 100% clean of any interaction with me.
I advocated for a reboot of the codebase, with the long-term goal to
provide a sustainable service to a community of users potentially
interested in a (modern) Java scientific library.
Of course, I'm not going to veto people who'd like to commit fixes
in the "3.x" line. I repeated that several times now.
However, have I the right to not want to do it myself?
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.
Right. And therefore incubation is a good way to build an own
community for
this one component only (although it is big).
Ted Dunning said that this is not a job for the Incubator, because the
problem is not the missing community. It is the Commons PMC not
willing
to let go of the code.
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.
Just because the way *you* like to act with CM is no option for a
Commons
component.
No, because of the way *you* acted in response to my wish to work
on what I deem feasible. And you didn't come up with something
better than "let's wait and see", which is not an option anymore
(because I've *already* done that, for 6 months, and saw that it
didn't work).
Gilles
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
