I wonder if we could reframe the way we are talking here. I like that we have been fairly civilized.
I like that email let's me read and write at my own time. But we are going in circles sometimes. With so many threads, it's hard to track it all. I am not sure if a (video or not) conference call would help. Maybe all that I am saying is that I should formalize my proposal (from an earlier threads) and offer a VOTE/POLL with a list of choice where folks order the list in their order and we use that result to move forward (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) So all we need now is to agree on the shape of the table, I mean the list of choices. Thoughts? Gary On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton < dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > From the Peanut Gallery, > > All of this discussion on (too many at once) [VOTE] threads suggest to me > that the [VOTE]s are premature. > > I don't understand the inclination to conduct [VOTE]s here that are at > best straw votes and generally serve to establish that there is no > consensus because of all the qualifications that are placed on the few > [VOTE]s that are apparently cast in the blur of discussions. > > I think the key matter is that there is not enough discussion to tease out > consensus and even find opportunities for lazy consensus. Then a [VOTE] > becomes a formal ratification in those rare cases where such a thing is > required (e.g., to back up a personnel action or take a resolution to the > Board). > > I think these discussions about clustering/splitting the Commons Math > components are very useful and interesting to observe. The use of [VOTE] > is worrisome and apparently useless other than for the attention it evokes. > > - Dennis > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gary Gregory [mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 08:30 > > To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] New component: Rational numbers > > > [ ... ] > > > > This (and new components VOTE thread) paints a more confusing picture > > than > > before to me. > > > > You are proposing to organize code into Commons Component/possible > > TLP/Attic/Something based on the current knowledge of some participants, > > including yourself, and I am grateful that you've been doing all this > > work. > > Part of me wants to stay out of the way and let the do-o-cracy play out > > but > > another part really feels this will be counter productive in the end > > (not > > to mention a lot of busy work.) > > > > As was mentioned by someone else before, people come and go, with > > different > > levels of expertise. > > > > For me, the keep-it-simple principle, not to mention least surprise says > > to > > keep whole the pile in one place, in Commons or as a TLP, either way. > > Whether we use more than one Maven module here or as a TLP is a > > different > > matter and not relevant to the residence of the code base. We have other > > Commons component that have multiple modules, no big deal. > > > > Gary > [ ... ] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
