On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:58:10 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Gilles wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:04:48 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton 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.
There was a vote because Jörg saw it as useful in order to decide
about the next step:
http://markmail.org/message/2lvirahwxerq36d2
How much longer should we rehash the same arguments from all sides?
The main problem is that the complete situation is unique. There has
been no
precedence for such a case so far. I cannot think of splitting a
commons
component in the last decade.
Comparison proves nothing.
The ML archive is littered by warnings of mine that CM was not a
component
like the other Commons components.
You persist by willing to treat it such although you now have seen that
the assumption led to a nasty situation for everyone.
If the intent is to go TLP with complete CM and the resubmit some
basic
stuff in a view light-weight new components for Commons. For those we
might
as well shorten this path and take the direct way.
+1 RNG
+1 Complex numbers
+1 Math functions
+1 Rational numbers
Especially since two
attempts to vote for TLP got us nowhere until now.
All would-be contributors voted "yes".
A few non-contributors were mildly opposed.
Someone mentioned that no veto should apply.
So I don't get the "got us nowhere".
The bottom-line of all this is that there are people (new and old
contributors to CM) who wish to do things, and everything that they
say _they_ will do is blocked by people who never contributed to CM
and do not intend to.
Again. Ouch.
Well, yes!
That's the way it is, to my dismay.
For all the discourse on diversity, and welcoming contributors,
and letting people who do things decide, the only thing that
was concretely accepted as "fine" is the fork of Commons Math
outside Apache!
While people who want to build something new out of the mess left
behind are struggling for weeks in order to be allowed to get to
productive work.
Non-contributors have nothing to loose, the Commons PMC members
have nothing to loose, by letting us try what we propose.
If it does not turn into something interesting, the situation will
be the same as it is now.
And you can start from the exact same point in the history of the
"Commons Math" code and try something else.
Gilles
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
