Well, as someone with even less time put in than Rob, I'll chime in as well.
First, while I wasn't here for it, it is clear that the fork was traumatic for the community. It should be expected there would be a recovery time. I think a lot of positive steps have been taken and given where the community was coming from we are not in a bad place now. IMHO, a TLP would be the best result IF there are enough contributors supporting it. The current process of digesting [math] by splitting it into components that are either easily maintained/understood (e.g. [numbers]) or adopted by a domain expert (e.g. [rng]) is a good way to continue moving forward. If a large enough contingent coalesces around the new components perhaps a TLP could be formed. On the other hand if we discover that a small number of components is all the community needs then maybe [math] becomes dormant and the new components carry the future. And that will be fine as well. On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Rob Tompkins <chtom...@gmail.com> wrote: > I suppose that I’ll chime in here. Do pardon my delinquency in responding > to the list. I tend to be fairly agnostic on these sorts of matters > because: (1) I have considerably smaller time in the project than most of > you, and (2) I have a serially agnostic temperament [personal issue :-)]. > > So after a year of participation in the project (Commons generally), I’ve > seen and come to enjoy that development is an extremely lengthy process > (and I believe for the better because it accommodates all necessary and > sufficient deliberation). Thus, I tend to take a slow perspective on any of > these changes realizing that I’m not going to be able to accomplish > anything short of the long order of weeks (short order of months). With > that in mind, I ask, what can I do to help [math]? What is “progress”? > > I think we could chip away at a 4.0 or a 3.7 release. I think we could go > TLP? Either direction contains the same difficulty in that finding > contributors in this domain is, apparently, quite difficult. Either > direction requires a relatively prioritized backlog, so that’s been my > intention thus far. And, further I plan to try to fix some of the bugs. > > As for the philosophy of the matter, I really don’t know what’s best. I do > think that much of this is because [math] sits squarely in-between a TLP > and a component that could be used by any application. > > So there. I’ve completely avoided taking an opinion one way or the other > (agnosticism at it’s best). I’m more in the boat of what can I do right now > to help. > > Cheers, > -Rob > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
