On Feb 3, 4:29 am, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Robert Bradshaw > > <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:21 PM, kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> A steering committee might be a good idea, we have JSage which > >>> somewhat fulfills this role. > > >> ??? > > >> You don't mean the fantastically > >> outdatedhttp://www.sagemath.org/jsage/editors.html > >> ... > > I've updated the page: http://www.sagemath.org/jsage/ > andhttp://www.sagemath.org/jsage/editors.html >
Thanks. Wow, this is very different from what JSage used to be, at least in theory. It sounds quite ominous. If you could put one or two examples of the sort of 'contentious issues' that have already been decided, how one does (or doesn't) get on the 'closed group', etc., that would be helpful. Otherwise it sort of makes Sage look like it has some "commit privilege" group like other OSS projects, when in actual fact many people who have made big decisions (esp. release managers!) are not on it, but nonetheless have considerable authority because of the essentially decentralized nature of Sage. Maybe something like "We decided not to rewrite Sage in Lisp or Haskell" would go there - except that would have been a community decision in any case. - kcrisman -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
