Hi Gilles, Gilles wrote:
> 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. It *not* unrealistic. But it seems that we have a totally different view of what it means to "care". It you pretend "care" as support any of the components into detail, then you're right. But as said before, nobody expects that. > 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! I do this as long as you disqualify other views based on contributions and therefore disrespecting the role of the Commons PMC. And I let it uncommented the first time. >> 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. You mean, there's suddenly no CM 4.0? Now I am confused. > 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? Absolutely. Again, nobody expects from you that you bug fix code you're not interested in. >>>>> 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. Well, he had now two votes for Math TLP. Actually I don't know either, why it does not proceed. Main concern seems to that the community is currently still too small. But see Niall's response. At least the TLP will give you a chance to reboot the code base completely. [snip] >> 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 again, I am not the only one here who has no problem with releasing again already released code independently if someone can currently support it (they way you define "support") or if it has know bugs. It's just that you refuse to act with such a handicap. > 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). I would not say that, it is just now that this topic has attention. And new people stepped up now. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
