Hi Gary.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:56:09 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:54 AM, Gilles
<gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
Hello.
Gary,
Thank you for mentioning the CM issue.
But...
[...]
## Health report:
[...]
- We are still experiencing some growing pains toward Commons Math
4.
There
is a backlog of issues in JIRA (not unlike other components) but
no
clear
concensus in the community. Do-ocracy is likely to prevail.
... This being an Apache community, is everyone at ease with using
"likely" in the above sentence?
There is a
proposal on how to move the code base forward and having Math
depend on
Commons Numbers and Commons RNG, and then dropping the
corresonding
Math code. All of which can be seen on the developer's mailing
list.
Several board reports have mentioned the "growing pains" and lack of
of consensus.
At what point are they going to reflect that the problem must be
dealt
with?
If you are looking to involve the board, then you are asking for a
sledgehammer. I do not see any rules or guidelines being broken, or
the
Apache Way being blocked. I do not see egregious behavior or
disrespectful
communication. I see busy people doing what they want when the want
in all
of Commons, respectfully and diligently.
I do not make any generalization, but I asked a simple question.
Unless I'm mistaken, no PMC member answered.
PMC members do not have time to contribute to all components, but is
it fine that this obvious fact prevents further development of some
components (including _parts_ of current CM) that could be
maintained
with much less manpower? [IMHO, the development of "Commons RNG"
somewhat proved that last point.]
For me, the PMC's main job is to vote on releases. PMC members do not
have
to code or participate in the bits and bytes of all components. Sure,
it
helps to know that some PMC members agree with one's direction, which
should facilitate pushing releases through. We all know the voting
rules by
this point, the barrier to release is not very high IMO.
The barrier might not be high but it is sufficient to prevent the
viability of the CM codebase.
I know that my opinion is dismissed by some PMC members, but the
issue is that the "do-ocracy" is not applied.
Commons is more open than any other Apache Project, anyone with
commit
rights can commit to Commons. That's pretty open. Our job is to
attract
like minded folks for the components we need help.
I've noted that ignoring bug reporters, not keeping codes up-to-date,
and not making releases (even though work has been done) is damaging.
No acknowledgment, no alternative proposed.
Must do-ocracy prevail or not? And, if not, why? [Let the board
answer if the PMC members won't.]
Yes doing the work gets you most of way there. Proposing a path
forward and
engaging fellow developers gets you most of the way there. Hopefully
PMC
members can offer some wisdom along the way and point out what they
think
is best. No one is malicious here. But, we all have POVs of course
;-)
Opinions opposing mine have been given.
But no action taken.
Discussions, building consensus, over time, is what I feel will get
Math 4
out of the mud.
Slogging through mud is an apt image!
For at least 14 months.
Again, development is possible, but the PMC does not support it,
which should be its role IMO.
My proposal concerning the future of the CM codebase has been on the
table for almost a year, without anyone else working on the
alternative
that had been discussed (that is, keep working on CM "as-is"), as
can
be viewed from the lack of communication with users (cf. JIRA
issues).
Readers of the ML could infer that I tried to come closer to a
"compromise", by suggesting a release of CM 4.0 (thus mitigating my
disappointment that a large part of that code would still have no
support from any of the "Commons" active developers).
However, the compromise only makes sense if those on the other side
of argument will participate in its implementation.
I appreciate you efforts over time. Let's keep things moving.
Hopefully
more folks will become engaged.
Wishful thinking.
And then?
How much more "efforts" must I put in order to deserve the
application of "do-ocracy" (in the sense that the PMC members
_support_ work being done, even if the route taken is not
their preferred choice)?
Everyone is entitled to his opinions.
What I ask is whether, in this particular situation, the PMC
is doing all it could/should.
I know that I cannot request time or interest from anyone; but
isn't the role of a PMC to solve a _project management_ issue?
I wish the report to suggest that advice from outside "Commons"
might be useful to get "things moving".
Thanks,
Gilles
Gary
Thanks for your attention,
Gilles
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
