On 13 June 2016 at 03:06, Rob Tompkins <chtom...@gmail.com> wrote: > With all of that said, then I'm a: +1 (binding).
AIUI this is a Common vote, as such only PMC member votes are considered binding. However you don't appear to be listed as a PMC member? > -Rob > >> On Jun 12, 2016, at 9:27 PM, Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Procedurally speaking, I see no reason for this community to hold any >>> vote at all. >>> >>> If a small group of people, including a foundation member or two, >>> wants to ask the board to establish a TLP, they may, by writing a >>> coherent proposal to the board explaining the situation. The board >>> might ask for a filled-in incubator proposal as input to their >>> deliberations. >>> >>> Or, of they wish to go into the incubator to try to build a viable >>> community that will get TLP status in time, they can write an >>> incubator proposal. >>> >>> The board or IPMC might wonder about the state of affairs here when >>> they receive one of these proposals, but it's hardly a matter that >>> calls for a formal vote here. >> >> Yes, I agree, but the discussion to gather those people together needs to >> take place somewhere and since here its been framed as a vote, then it >> would be good if those people who want to participate in a TLP effort would >> do so in this thread. >> >> Niall >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Niall Pemberton >> <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 14:33:58 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: >>>>> >>>>> -1 (non-binding) >>>>> >>>>> Reason for objection: >>>>> >>>>> I think the framing of this vote is confusing. >>>>> >>>>> 1. There appears to be less ability to go to TLP than there was at >>>>> the time the previous motion passed. >>>>> >>>>> 2. The discussion (but not the [VOTE]) speaks of going to TLP via >>>>> the incubator. It has to be one or the other. Propose a podling to >>>>> Incubator or propose a TLP to the Board. There is no assurance that a >>>>> podling will graduate and it doesn't fit to make that a condition. >>>>> One could raise the special circumstances at general-incubator, but I >>>>> think that works best with something specific (but malleable) in hand. >>>>> >>>>> 3. The Incubator is reluctant to start podlings from scratch, as >>>>> Niall observes. >>>> >>>> Could you please expand on how 3 Commons PMC members and 3 would-be >>>> contributors are assimilated to "scratch"? >>> >>> It would be good if all those wanting to be part of a Math TLP could >>> indicate that here and cast a vote for a Math TLP. Including yourself >>> Gilles, since so far I don't remember seeing whether you that you were in >>> favour of this. >>> >>> Niall >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Gilles >>>> >>>> >>>> 4. It seems to me that the best first-step on whether incubation is >>>>> feasible is to do the work to create an incubation proposal. This >>>>> will require certain key factors to be addressed. Not the least is >>>>> how the code base will be imported and, because it is from an Apache >>>>> Project, how it will be left behind too. That definition can start >>>>> here and then be refined on the general-incubator list where one will >>>>> need to find a champion (perhaps), mentors, and a sufficient body of >>>>> initial committers. It is important for those who would form the >>>>> initial core for a podling to learn enough about how incubation works. >>>>> >>>>> - Dennis >>>>> >>>>> Disclosure: >>>>> >>>>> I have no idea how this might go. I am not a Commons Math >>>>> subject-matter expert, even though computational mathematics has some >>>>> appeal for me. I still have my bound "Collect Algorithms from ACM, >>>>> Volume 1: Algorithms 1-220." I did not hold onto the microfiche of >>>>> later algorithms that were published in conjunction with the ACM >>>>> Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS). The latest (Algorithm >>>>> 959) is interesting although I have no idea where to find the code and >>>>> am dismayed that it is a library under the GPL. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pember...@gmail.com] >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 11:56 >>>>>> To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move Commons Math to TLP (again)... >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:39 AM, James Carman >>>>>> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> We would take math through the incubator in order to build community >>>>>> around >>>>>>> it first. If we fail to do so, then we can decide its fate at that >>>>>> time. We >>>>>>> haven't done a good job attracting new people to math here at all. It >>>>>> has >>>>>>> always been maintained primarily by a select few. >>>>>> >>>>>> It made sense to me when there were 6 committers working on Math, but I >>>>>> think given the exodus of most of those people to hipparchus then it >>>>>> would >>>>>> be better to wait a while for the dust to settle to see what happens >>>>>> with >>>>>> Math. >>>>>> >>>>>> I also don't think the incubator is a good place for starting a >>>>>> community >>>>>> from scratch (i.e. one or two man projects) - if you have a nucleus of >>>>>> at >>>>>> least a few people, then it has much better chance of success. >>>>>> >>>>>> So for me, I'm -1 unless there are enough Mathematicians who want to >>>>>> work >>>>>> on the code to give it a chance as an incubator project. >>>>>> >>>>>> Niall >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 1:36 AM Ralph Goers >>>>>> <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -1 (binding) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At least until there are enough people to have a viable PMC. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ralph >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 10, 2016, at 8:47 PM, James Carman >>>>>> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since it has been suggested that the previously passing vote >>>>>> should be >>>>>>>>> voided, I propose we vote again to move Commons Math to a TLP: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 - Yes, move Commons Math to a TLP >>>>>>>>> -1 - No, do not move Commons Math to a TLP >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The vote will remain open for 72 hours. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> James Carman >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> - >>>>>>>> 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 >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
