On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > This thread seems to have died. I am confused why no proposal has been > created. 7 people is certainly enough to propose something. Or is the desire > simply to remain a subproject of Commons?
I diagnose some authority confusion here. I fear that some people think that since some members of the commons PMC made negative remarks about the TLP strategy, that the strategy is '-1'd. While the board is undoubtedly interested in the view of the commons PMC of a Math TLP, a single -1 of a commons PMC member would not, I bet, be a veto. So I'd join you in encouraging this group to write the proposal and engage with the board. That's the clearest way to identify a distinctive Math community and allow that community to get to work independently of all the other currents in commons. > > Ralph > >> On Jun 18, 2016, at 7:08 PM, Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 11:53:37 -0500, Matt Benson wrote: >>> >> >>>> I think it is indicative of the position held by many, myself included, >>>> that a set of focused, math-related artifacts do not make sense at the >>>> Commons component level, and should be grouped as separate artifacts of >>>> Commons math or a TLP with the same basic structure. >>>> >>> >>> We are getting close to the real problem. >>> >>> Can we draw the conclusion, at last, that Commons Math does not make >>> sense in Commons? [I'd hope so; since you make the point that even a >>> general functionality like random number generation would not make >>> sense here, then a monolithic library (with all sorts of math-related >>> functionalities) makes even less sense here.] >>> >>> So I think that we could summarize the situation as follows: >>> * -1 for new components (Commons refuses) >>> * -1 for TLP (Commons refuses) >>> * -1 for incubator (until the situation is "clarified") >>> * -1 for no change (no committer left) >> >> >> There are two routes to a Math TLP - either directly (by board resolution) >> or via the Incubator. No-one here can veto either of those routes and with >> both routes the first thing to do would be to put together a proposal [1]. >> The ASF board decides whether they will accept the "direct to TLP" route - >> and its usually based on having an existing experienced viable community. >> If thats not possible, then the route through the incubator is the >> alternative. Either way, you need to gather the people interested and write >> a proposal, which from the various threads looks like the following: >> >> - Gilles Sadowski >> - James Carmen >> - Gary Gregory http://markmail.org/message/ydtkgvazec5bhzdk >> - Jochen Weidman http://markmail.org/message/gbfqfppf4u3unqo4 >> - Rob Tomkins http://markmail.org/message/suq3ihvuqppinspf >> - Eric Barnhill http://markmail.org/message/6wgf5rtcario2teb >> - Artem Barger http://markmail.org/message/akfekuxp5ujyhbr3 >> >> Is there anyone else? >> >> Niall >> >> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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
