Gilles doesn’t need anyone’s permission to create a branch. He only has a problem if someone votes -1. But I can’t imagine why anyone would vote -1 to a commit on a branch. The only thing he needs permission for is making a release - in the form of 3 +1 votes and more +1’s than -1’s from PMC members.
Ralph > On Jun 22, 2016, at 5:34 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Is it possible for a committer in Commons to simply declare Lazy Consensus > and checkin code to a new branch? > > If so go ahead and see if a community forms. If a substantive conversation > occurs. > > If not then propose it and VOTE on giving Giles a branch (olive or fig) and > see what happens? > > Regards, > Dave > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jun 22, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:58:10 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote: >>> Gilles wrote: >>> >>>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:04:48 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >>>>> From the Peanut Gallery, >>>>> >>>>> All of this discussion on (too many at once) [VOTE] threads suggest >>>>> to me that the [VOTE]s are premature. >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand the inclination to conduct [VOTE]s here that are >>>>> at best straw votes and generally serve to establish that there is no >>>>> consensus because of all the qualifications that are placed on the >>>>> few >>>>> [VOTE]s that are apparently cast in the blur of discussions. >>>>> >>>>> I think the key matter is that there is not enough discussion to >>>>> tease out consensus and even find opportunities for lazy consensus. >>>>> Then a [VOTE] becomes a formal ratification in those rare cases where >>>>> such a thing is required (e.g., to back up a personnel action or take >>>>> a resolution to the Board). >>>>> >>>>> I think these discussions about clustering/splitting the Commons Math >>>>> components are very useful and interesting to observe. The use of >>>>> [VOTE] is worrisome and apparently useless other than for the >>>>> attention it evokes. >>>> >>>> There was a vote because Jörg saw it as useful in order to decide >>>> about the next step: >>>> http://markmail.org/message/2lvirahwxerq36d2 >>>> >>>> How much longer should we rehash the same arguments from all sides? >>> >>> >>> The main problem is that the complete situation is unique. There has been no >>> precedence for such a case so far. I cannot think of splitting a commons >>> component in the last decade. >> >> Comparison proves nothing. >> The ML archive is littered by warnings of mine that CM was not a component >> like the other Commons components. >> You persist by willing to treat it such although you now have seen that >> the assumption led to a nasty situation for everyone. >> >>> If the intent is to go TLP with complete CM and the resubmit some basic >>> stuff in a view light-weight new components for Commons. For those we might >>> as well shorten this path and take the direct way. >> >> +1 RNG >> +1 Complex numbers >> +1 Math functions >> +1 Rational numbers >> >>> Especially since two >>> attempts to vote for TLP got us nowhere until now. >> >> All would-be contributors voted "yes". >> A few non-contributors were mildly opposed. >> Someone mentioned that no veto should apply. >> >> So I don't get the "got us nowhere". >> >>>> The bottom-line of all this is that there are people (new and old >>>> contributors to CM) who wish to do things, and everything that they >>>> say _they_ will do is blocked by people who never contributed to CM >>>> and do not intend to. >>> >>> Again. Ouch. >> >> Well, yes! >> That's the way it is, to my dismay. >> >> For all the discourse on diversity, and welcoming contributors, >> and letting people who do things decide, the only thing that >> was concretely accepted as "fine" is the fork of Commons Math >> outside Apache! >> >> While people who want to build something new out of the mess left >> behind are struggling for weeks in order to be allowed to get to >> productive work. >> >> Non-contributors have nothing to loose, the Commons PMC members >> have nothing to loose, by letting us try what we propose. >> If it does not turn into something interesting, the situation will >> be the same as it is now. >> And you can start from the exact same point in the history of the >> "Commons Math" code and try something else. >> >> Gilles >> >>> - Jörg >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
