On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:10:56 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Le 18/04/2017 à 15:42, Gilles a écrit :
And that's why "do-ocracy" should really matter more than
"opinion".
And how do you reach consensus if you aren't open to others opinions?
Doing and not listening is just a variant of dictatorshi
Le 18/04/2017 à 15:42, Gilles a écrit :
> And that's why "do-ocracy" should really matter more than
> "opinion".
And how do you reach consensus if you aren't open to others opinions?
Doing and not listening is just a variant of dictatorship, that's not my
vision of an open community.
Emmanuel Bo
Hello Stefan.
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:15:20 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
[sorry, been offline for a few days and don't want to re-start a
thread
that seems to have come to a conclusion, just need to clarify one
thing]
I think that you have highlighted why "Commons" ways did not
work for CM.
[sorry, been offline for a few days and don't want to re-start a thread
that seems to have come to a conclusion, just need to clarify one thing]
On 2017-04-14, Gilles wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:34:22 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2017-04-13, Gilles wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:
On Apr 17, 2017 3:32 PM, "Gilles" wrote:
Hi Ralph.
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:55:49 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Gilles,
>
> What is your vision on where things should end up? Can you identify
> what new commons sub-projects we will have? If it is just 3 or 4 I
> have no problem with that.
>
We
Hi Ralph.
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 10:55:49 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
Gilles,
What is your vision on where things should end up? Can you identify
what new commons sub-projects we will have? If it is just 3 or 4 I
have no problem with that.
We have
* RNG
We will have
* Numbers
We might have
On Apr 16, 2017 10:56 AM, "Ralph Goers" wrote:
Gilles,
What is your vision on where things should end up? Can you identify what
new commons sub-projects we will have? If it is just 3 or 4 I have no
problem with that. But if we are going to have 10 sub-projects then I
really feel like it should
Gilles,
What is your vision on where things should end up? Can you identify what new
commons sub-projects we will have? If it is just 3 or 4 I have no problem with
that. But if we are going to have 10 sub-projects then I really feel like it
should be done as:
A: Commons Math with Commons Ma
Hi Rob.
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 11:49:32 -0400, Rob Tompkins 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
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
comm
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 af
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 17:51:34 +0200, Oliver Heger wrote:
Am 15.04.2017 um 00:15 schrieb Gilles:
Hi Oliver.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:48:26 +0200, Oliver Heger wrote:
Hi,
Am 14.04.2017 um 17:12 schrieb Gilles:
Hi Benedikt.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:49:25 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
[...]
My pe
Am 15.04.2017 um 00:15 schrieb Gilles:
> Hi Oliver.
>
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:48:26 +0200, Oliver Heger wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am 14.04.2017 um 17:12 schrieb Gilles:
>>> Hi Benedikt.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:49:25 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
[...]
>>>
My personal opinion is, that
On Apr 14, 2017 12:31 PM, "Gilles" wrote:
Emmanuel,
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 19:37:08 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> On 04/14/2017 06:12 PM, Gilles wrote:
>
> [I can be clearer: I had this issue with Emmanuel, about the
>> design and scope of "Commons RNG" (cf. ML archive), and it was
>> acknowledg
It seems to me that some of these issues are likely unavoidable. The
comment on this thread that resonated with me most was something like "I
don't look at Jiras of projects I don't care about". I could say "I have
been guilty of that behavior" but there is IMO nothing wrong with this
behavior. Com
Hi Oliver.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:48:26 +0200, Oliver Heger wrote:
Hi,
Am 14.04.2017 um 17:12 schrieb Gilles:
Hi Benedikt.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:49:25 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
[...]
My personal opinion is, that neither CM, nor numbers or RNG belong
into commons. They are to specific
Hi,
Am 14.04.2017 um 17:12 schrieb Gilles:
> Hi Benedikt.
>
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:49:25 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> sorry for coming late to the table. I think Gary summed it up pretty
>> well:
>>
>> „I see busy people doing what they want when the want in all
>> of Commons, res
Emmanuel,
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 19:37:08 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
On 04/14/2017 06:12 PM, Gilles wrote:
[I can be clearer: I had this issue with Emmanuel, about the
design and scope of "Commons RNG" (cf. ML archive), and it was
acknowledged that "do-ocracy" must prevail over "opinion".]
We
On 04/14/2017 06:12 PM, Gilles wrote:
> [I can be clearer: I had this issue with Emmanuel, about the
> design and scope of "Commons RNG" (cf. ML archive), and it was
> acknowledged that "do-ocracy" must prevail over "opinion".]
Well, I had much more than mere "opinions" to offer to RNG, but you
r
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 08:54:24 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Apr 14, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Gilles
wrote:
Regarding the decision to keep CM here at commons: As far as I
remember (I’m sure Gilles has the likes to the archives ;-)) the
PMC
was pretty ambivalent and let it to the CM developers. That g
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:34:22 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2017-04-13, Gilles wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:27 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote:
[Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was developed inside CM and
most PMC people did not even know about it (althou
> On Apr 14, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Gilles wrote:
>
>> Regarding the decision to keep CM here at commons: As far as I
>> remember (I’m sure Gilles has the likes to the archives ;-)) the PMC
>> was pretty ambivalent and let it to the CM developers. That group
>> decided it would be better to stay at c
Hi Benedikt.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:49:25 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
Hi,
sorry for coming late to the table. I think Gary summed it up pretty
well:
„I see busy people doing what they want when the want in all
of Commons, respectfully and diligently.“
After going through the mails, I stil
As always very well put, Stefan!
Stefan Bodewig schrieb am Fr. 14. Apr. 2017 um 16:34:
> On 2017-04-13, Gilles wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:27 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> >> On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote:
>
> >>> [Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was developed inside CM and
> >>>
On 2017-04-13, Gilles wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:27 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote:
>>> [Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was developed inside CM and
>>> most PMC people did not even know about it (although I was opening
>>> JIRA issues all along. Hence
Hi,
sorry for coming late to the table. I think Gary summed it up pretty well:
„I see busy people doing what they want when the want in all
of Commons, respectfully and diligently.“
After going through the mails, I still don’t understand how the PMC needs to
change it ways in order to move CM f
Hi Jörg.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:31:17 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Oliver,
Oliver Heger wrote:
Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project ra
Hi.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:27 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote:
[Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was developed inside CM and
most PMC people did not even know about it (although I was opening
JIRA issues all along. Hence creating a "git" repository is not
futi
On 2017-04-13, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Oliver Heger wrote:
>> I am fine with Commons RNG and Commons Numbers.
>> I would feel uneasy with a significant number of mathematical components
>> extracted from [math] that are added to Commons, even if they are small
>> and focused. It would seem strang
On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote:
> [Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was developed inside CM and
> most PMC people did not even know about it (although I was opening
> JIRA issues all along. Hence creating a "git" repository is not
> futile if it can raise awareness.]
By now you've probably lea
Hi Oliver,
Oliver Heger wrote:
> Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles:
>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>> On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>>
Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than
having the PMC support its own developer
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:04:00 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Apr 12, 2017 12:41 PM, "Oliver Heger"
wrote:
Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache pr
Hi Oliver.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 21:41:34 +0200, Oliver Heger wrote:
Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather
than
having the PMC support
On Apr 12, 2017 12:41 PM, "Oliver Heger"
wrote:
Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>
>>> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than
>>> having the PMC support its o
Am 12.04.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Gilles:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>
>>> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than
>>> having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it could?
>>
>> If
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:06:02 +0200, Eric Barnhill wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Gilles
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:56:23 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
On 04/12/2017 02:56 PM, Gilles wrote:
Yes; and it is good per se, of course. Unforunately, it didn't
change
the Commons Math i
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:25:03 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than
having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it could?
If nobody is able to maintain commons-math I have no objecti
On 04/12/2017 05:29 PM, Gilles wrote:
> Do you actually prefer advertizing a non-Apache project rather than
> having the PMC support its own developers in any which way it could?
If nobody is able to maintain commons-math I have no objection
recommending an alternative, especially one that is der
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Gilles
wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:56:23 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>
>> On 04/12/2017 02:56 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>
>> Yes; and it is good per se, of course. Unforunately, it didn't change
>>> the Commons Math issue: it's still unmaintained, and from what I o
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:56:23 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
On 04/12/2017 02:56 PM, Gilles wrote:
Yes; and it is good per se, of course. Unforunately, it didn't
change
the Commons Math issue: it's still unmaintained, and from what I
observe
on JIRA, it's not going to improve with time (I said t
Hi Stefan.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:22:23 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
[sorry for the comments from the peanut gallery, I haven't been
following MATH and likely will never contribute anything substantial]
On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:03:05 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
On 04/12/2017 02:56 PM, Gilles wrote:
> Yes; and it is good per se, of course. Unforunately, it didn't change
> the Commons Math issue: it's still unmaintained, and from what I observe
> on JIRA, it's not going to improve with time (I said that much one year
> ago and I was right, in hindsight).
[sorry for the comments from the peanut gallery, I haven't been
following MATH and likely will never contribute anything substantial]
On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:03:05 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>> What do you expect now that is blocked by the PMC?
> With "Commons RN
Hi Emmanuel.
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 12:03:05 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Gilles,
I admit I'm not sure to understand what you are complaining about.
Last
year you complained that you were the last one maintaining
commons-math
It was not a complaint, but a (sad) fact.
and that a monolithic co
Gilles,
I admit I'm not sure to understand what you are complaining about. Last
year you complained that you were the last one maintaining commons-math
and that a monolithic component was unsustainable. Since then we got new
contributors and smaller components have been spun off commons-math.
What
Hi Gary.
On Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:56:09 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:54 AM, Gilles
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
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:54 AM, Gilles
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 oth
47 matches
Mail list logo
