Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
On Jun 18, 2016 2:05 PM, "Gilles" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 11:00:34 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Gilles
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> I'm asking, again, whether I need to initiate a VOTE that would allow me
>>> to set up a workspace ("git", etc.) and transfer some code from CM over
>>> there.
>>>
>>
>> Nothing is stopping you from setting something up. Github is usually the
>> easiest way.
>>
>> It doesn't sound like that is what you want, however. I don't understand
>> why not.
>
>
> And I don't understand that Apache would indeed prefer that code be forked
> rather than evolved here...
>
>
>>> It may be that incubation is a good thing for Commons Math, but it
doesn't
seem valid to say that incubation is necessary because CM is being
kicked
out of Commons.
>>>
>>> Never said so.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm... I must have misunderstood the comment about CM not being
interested
>> in hosting "these components".
>
>
> Commons is NOT interested in hosting the new components.
> That much was made clear in Matt Benson's last post. [Maybe not
cross-posted
> to the incubator's ML.]
>
I am one person. Personally I don't understand what is so offensive to you
about retaining a hierarchical level between Commons and math-focused
artifacts; I simply feel that a preponderance of math-focused components
dilutes the Commons "brand."
br,
Matt
>
>>> There is a confusion here: *I* say that CM is dead.
>>>
>>
>> Strong words. Such statements are often frustrating to others.
>
>
> Not strong, just factual.
>
> Maybe it will be revived in the future.
> Until then, I proposed to *do* something while the others seem to only
> want to wait.
> Strange that the latter proposal seems more acceptable than mine.
>
>
>> It does
>> sound like the community has dwindled, perhaps beyond repair.
>
>
> It sure sounds like it.
> In fewer words: CM is dead.
>
>
>> The development situation *will* change because the context *has* changed
>>>
>>> (unsupported code). CM cannot go on as it did before the fork.
>>>
>>
>> You can never go home. No project stays the same.
>
>
> Well, some people in CM for years did their best to avoid change.
> I didn't like that view and argue with them because they were
> important contributors to CM.
>
> I still have to argue, but now with non-contributors.
> *This* makes no sense.
>
>
>>> Everybody (developers, users, Commons PMC) would be better off with a
>>> selected set of new (supported) components because this is something we
>>> can easily do *now* (RERO, etc.).
>>>
>>
>> This was your assertion in the long email thread. It seemed that there
was
>> significant counter-positions.
>
>
> By non-contributors, using arguments that do not fit the CM history.
>
>
>>> I'm OK to go through the incubator to do that; but I don't see that it
>>> is an easier path. Surely it looks longer. And it seems that even the
>>> incubator people doubt that it will lead anywhere.
>>>
>>
>> The incubator is for building community and adapting to Apache. If you
>> don't have a seed community, then incubator is the wrong place. You need
to
>> have more than just you.
>
>
> That's fair, but there are a few others; that was mentioned.
>
>
>>>
>>> Given the uncertain outcome, going through the incubator would be an
>>> attempt at rethinking the development of the currently unsupported
>>> code. See e.g.
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-172
>>> [Or is that out of scope for an incubation proposal?]
>>
>>
>>
>> Incubator is not a place to rethink code. It is primarily for building
>> community.
>
>
> I thought so.
> So, that leaves us with TLP. Back to square one.
>
>
>
> Gilles
>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Gilles
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:51:36 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
>
> Excuse me?
>>
>>
>> See inline.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gilles
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all.
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:01:13 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>> I thought this had been made clear. Several months Commons voted to
>>>
make Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people involved
with Commons Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for
them,
so they forked the project and left, effectively voiding the TLP
vote
since the proposed PMC is no longer valid. There is one person
left
who was very involved in Commons Math and a few other people who
have
expressed interest in joining the new community.
So this is a situation where we have an already existing code base
where a lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a bit of
it. The new group of people who are interested are trying to
determine how they should move forward. There is some talk of
breaking
Commons Math into smaller components and possibly dropping some
wher
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 11:00:34 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Gilles
wrote:
...
I'm asking, again, whether I need to initiate a VOTE that would
allow me
to set up a workspace ("git", etc.) and transfer some code from CM
over
there.
Nothing is stopping you from setting something up. Github is usually
the
easiest way.
It doesn't sound like that is what you want, however. I don't
understand
why not.
And I don't understand that Apache would indeed prefer that code be
forked
rather than evolved here...
It may be that incubation is a good thing for Commons Math, but it
doesn't
seem valid to say that incubation is necessary because CM is being
kicked
out of Commons.
Never said so.
Hmm... I must have misunderstood the comment about CM not being
interested
in hosting "these components".
Commons is NOT interested in hosting the new components.
That much was made clear in Matt Benson's last post. [Maybe not
cross-posted
to the incubator's ML.]
There is a confusion here: *I* say that CM is dead.
Strong words. Such statements are often frustrating to others.
Not strong, just factual.
Maybe it will be revived in the future.
Until then, I proposed to *do* something while the others seem to only
want to wait.
Strange that the latter proposal seems more acceptable than mine.
It does
sound like the community has dwindled, perhaps beyond repair.
It sure sounds like it.
In fewer words: CM is dead.
The development situation *will* change because the context *has*
changed
(unsupported code). CM cannot go on as it did before the fork.
You can never go home. No project stays the same.
Well, some people in CM for years did their best to avoid change.
I didn't like that view and argue with them because they were
important contributors to CM.
I still have to argue, but now with non-contributors.
*This* makes no sense.
Everybody (developers, users, Commons PMC) would be better off with
a
selected set of new (supported) components because this is something
we
can easily do *now* (RERO, etc.).
This was your assertion in the long email thread. It seemed that
there was
significant counter-positions.
By non-contributors, using arguments that do not fit the CM history.
I'm OK to go through the incubator to do that; but I don't see that
it
is an easier path. Surely it looks longer. And it seems that even
the
incubator people doubt that it will lead anywhere.
The incubator is for building community and adapting to Apache. If
you
don't have a seed community, then incubator is the wrong place. You
need to
have more than just you.
That's fair, but there are a few others; that was mentioned.
Given the uncertain outcome, going through the incubator would be an
attempt at rethinking the development of the currently unsupported
code. See e.g.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-172
[Or is that out of scope for an incubation proposal?]
Incubator is not a place to rethink code. It is primarily for
building
community.
I thought so.
So, that leaves us with TLP. Back to square one.
Gilles
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Gilles
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:51:36 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
Excuse me?
See inline.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gilles
wrote:
Hi all.
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:01:13 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
I thought this had been made clear. Several months Commons
voted to
make Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people
involved
with Commons Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for
them,
so they forked the project and left, effectively voiding the
TLP vote
since the proposed PMC is no longer valid. There is one person
left
who was very involved in Commons Math and a few other people
who have
expressed interest in joining the new community.
So this is a situation where we have an already existing code
base
where a lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a
bit of
it. The new group of people who are interested are trying to
determine how they should move forward. There is some talk of
breaking
Commons Math into smaller components and possibly dropping some
where
there is no one to maintain it.
The "Commons" project not being interested in hosting those
components,
is the "incubator" a good place for the developers wishing to go
in
that
direction?
Perhaps before we move to next steps, could you provide some
links to
the
discussion where it was decided that Commons is not interested in
hosting
these components?
I proposed to concretely examine this possibility in more than
one message:
http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp
http://markmail.org/message/3gupcednhqtcfepw
http://markmail.org/message/3kob7djjicax6rgn
http://markmail.org/message/7rb2mxq7hhwzykvr
And again in another thread:
http://markmail.org/message/fnlta2ttfne3aj5f
What's the next step?
Let's get to a common understanding of what went before.
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Gilles
wrote:
> ...
> I'm asking, again, whether I need to initiate a VOTE that would allow me
> to set up a workspace ("git", etc.) and transfer some code from CM over
> there.
>
Nothing is stopping you from setting something up. Github is usually the
easiest way.
It doesn't sound like that is what you want, however. I don't understand
why not.
>
> It may be that incubation is a good thing for Commons Math, but it doesn't
>> seem valid to say that incubation is necessary because CM is being kicked
>> out of Commons.
>>
>
> Never said so.
>
Hmm... I must have misunderstood the comment about CM not being interested
in hosting "these components".
> There is a confusion here: *I* say that CM is dead.
>
Strong words. Such statements are often frustrating to others. It does
sound like the community has dwindled, perhaps beyond repair.
The development situation *will* change because the context *has* changed
> (unsupported code). CM cannot go on as it did before the fork.
>
You can never go home. No project stays the same.
> Everybody (developers, users, Commons PMC) would be better off with a
> selected set of new (supported) components because this is something we
> can easily do *now* (RERO, etc.).
>
This was your assertion in the long email thread. It seemed that there was
significant counter-positions.
> I'm OK to go through the incubator to do that; but I don't see that it
> is an easier path. Surely it looks longer. And it seems that even the
> incubator people doubt that it will lead anywhere.
>
The incubator is for building community and adapting to Apache. If you
don't have a seed community, then incubator is the wrong place. You need to
have more than just you.
>
> Given the uncertain outcome, going through the incubator would be an
> attempt at rethinking the development of the currently unsupported
> code. See e.g.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-172
> [Or is that out of scope for an incubation proposal?]
Incubator is not a place to rethink code. It is primarily for building
community.
>
>
>
> Gilles
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Gilles
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:51:36 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
>>>
>>> Excuse me?
See inline.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gilles
wrote:
Hi all.
>
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:01:13 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> I thought this had been made clear. Several months Commons voted to
>
>> make Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people involved
>> with Commons Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for them,
>> so they forked the project and left, effectively voiding the TLP vote
>> since the proposed PMC is no longer valid. There is one person left
>> who was very involved in Commons Math and a few other people who have
>> expressed interest in joining the new community.
>>
>> So this is a situation where we have an already existing code base
>> where a lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a bit of
>> it. The new group of people who are interested are trying to
>> determine how they should move forward. There is some talk of breaking
>> Commons Math into smaller components and possibly dropping some where
>> there is no one to maintain it.
>>
>>
>> The "Commons" project not being interested in hosting those
> components,
> is the "incubator" a good place for the developers wishing to go in
> that
> direction?
>
>
> Perhaps before we move to next steps, could you provide some links to
the
discussion where it was decided that Commons is not interested in
hosting
these components?
>>> I proposed to concretely examine this possibility in more than
>>> one message:
>>> http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp
>>> http://markmail.org/message/3gupcednhqtcfepw
>>> http://markmail.org/message/3kob7djjicax6rgn
>>> http://markmail.org/message/7rb2mxq7hhwzykvr
>>>
>>> And again in another thread:
>>> http://markmail.org/message/fnlta2ttfne3aj5f
>>>
>>>
>>> What's the next step?
>
>
> Let's get to a common understanding of what went before.
>>> Even that seems impossible. :-(
>>>
>>>
>>> Gilles
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
Hi.
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:01:20 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
Gilles,
Thanks for links.
I just read that (long-winded) thread and I see no consensus that
"Commons
project is not being interested in hosting those components".
In line with what I wrote previously, there isn't any consensus on
anything
within Commons.
I'm asking, again, whether I need to initiate a VOTE that would allow
me
to set up a workspace ("git", etc.) and transfer some code from CM over
there.
Or can I jut do it? [Some help with doing that is most welcome.]
It may be that incubation is a good thing for Commons Math, but it
doesn't
seem valid to say that incubation is necessary because CM is being
kicked
out of Commons.
Never said so.
There is a confusion here: *I* say that CM is dead.
It was dead already in early February but nobody noticed because *I*
(alone) continued to answer the ML, comment on JIRA reports and commit
code.
Why I was alone doing that became clear when Luc announced his
resignation
and the fork.
The development situation *will* change because the context *has*
changed
(unsupported code).
CM cannot go on as it did before the fork.
Everybody (developers, users, Commons PMC) would be better off with a
selected set of new (supported) components because this is something we
can easily do *now* (RERO, etc.).
I'm OK to go through the incubator to do that; but I don't see that it
is an easier path. Surely it looks longer. And it seems that even the
incubator people doubt that it will lead anywhere.
Given the uncertain outcome, going through the incubator would be an
attempt at rethinking the development of the currently unsupported
code. See e.g.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-172
[Or is that out of scope for an incubation proposal?]
Gilles
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Gilles
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:51:36 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
Excuse me?
See inline.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gilles
wrote:
Hi all.
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:01:13 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote:
I thought this had been made clear. Several months Commons voted
to
make Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people
involved
with Commons Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for
them,
so they forked the project and left, effectively voiding the TLP
vote
since the proposed PMC is no longer valid. There is one person
left
who was very involved in Commons Math and a few other people who
have
expressed interest in joining the new community.
So this is a situation where we have an already existing code
base
where a lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a bit
of
it. The new group of people who are interested are trying to
determine how they should move forward. There is some talk of
breaking
Commons Math into smaller components and possibly dropping some
where
there is no one to maintain it.
The "Commons" project not being interested in hosting those
components,
is the "incubator" a good place for the developers wishing to go
in that
direction?
Perhaps before we move to next steps, could you provide some links
to the
discussion where it was decided that Commons is not interested in
hosting
these components?
I proposed to concretely examine this possibility in more than
one message:
http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp
http://markmail.org/message/3gupcednhqtcfepw
http://markmail.org/message/3kob7djjicax6rgn
http://markmail.org/message/7rb2mxq7hhwzykvr
And again in another thread:
http://markmail.org/message/fnlta2ttfne3aj5f
What's the next step?
Let's get to a common understanding of what went before.
Even that seems impossible. :-(
Gilles
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
Gilles, Thanks for links. I just read that (long-winded) thread and I see no consensus that "Commons project is not being interested in hosting those components". It may be that incubation is a good thing for Commons Math, but it doesn't seem valid to say that incubation is necessary because CM is being kicked out of Commons. On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Gilles wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:51:36 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote: > >> Excuse me? >> >> See inline. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gilles >> wrote: >> >> Hi all. >>> >>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:01:13 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote: >>> >>> I thought this had been made clear. Several months Commons voted to make Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people involved with Commons Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for them, so they forked the project and left, effectively voiding the TLP vote since the proposed PMC is no longer valid. There is one person left who was very involved in Commons Math and a few other people who have expressed interest in joining the new community. So this is a situation where we have an already existing code base where a lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a bit of it. The new group of people who are interested are trying to determine how they should move forward. There is some talk of breaking Commons Math into smaller components and possibly dropping some where there is no one to maintain it. >>> The "Commons" project not being interested in hosting those components, >>> is the "incubator" a good place for the developers wishing to go in that >>> direction? >>> >>> >> Perhaps before we move to next steps, could you provide some links to the >> discussion where it was decided that Commons is not interested in hosting >> these components? >> > > I proposed to concretely examine this possibility in more than > one message: > http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp > http://markmail.org/message/3gupcednhqtcfepw > http://markmail.org/message/3kob7djjicax6rgn > http://markmail.org/message/7rb2mxq7hhwzykvr > > And again in another thread: > http://markmail.org/message/fnlta2ttfne3aj5f > > >>> What's the next step? >>> >>> >> Let's get to a common understanding of what went before. >> > > Even that seems impossible. :-( > > > Gilles > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:51:36 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote: Excuse me? See inline. On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gilles wrote: Hi all. On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:01:13 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote: I thought this had been made clear. Several months Commons voted to make Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people involved with Commons Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for them, so they forked the project and left, effectively voiding the TLP vote since the proposed PMC is no longer valid. There is one person left who was very involved in Commons Math and a few other people who have expressed interest in joining the new community. So this is a situation where we have an already existing code base where a lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a bit of it. The new group of people who are interested are trying to determine how they should move forward. There is some talk of breaking Commons Math into smaller components and possibly dropping some where there is no one to maintain it. The "Commons" project not being interested in hosting those components, is the "incubator" a good place for the developers wishing to go in that direction? Perhaps before we move to next steps, could you provide some links to the discussion where it was decided that Commons is not interested in hosting these components? I proposed to concretely examine this possibility in more than one message: http://markmail.org/message/ye6wvqvlvnqe4qrp http://markmail.org/message/3gupcednhqtcfepw http://markmail.org/message/3kob7djjicax6rgn http://markmail.org/message/7rb2mxq7hhwzykvr And again in another thread: http://markmail.org/message/fnlta2ttfne3aj5f What's the next step? Let's get to a common understanding of what went before. Even that seems impossible. :-( Gilles - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
Excuse me? See inline. On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gilles wrote: > Hi all. > > On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:01:13 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote: > >> I thought this had been made clear. Several months Commons voted to >> make Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people involved >> with Commons Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for them, >> so they forked the project and left, effectively voiding the TLP vote >> since the proposed PMC is no longer valid. There is one person left >> who was very involved in Commons Math and a few other people who have >> expressed interest in joining the new community. >> >> So this is a situation where we have an already existing code base >> where a lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a bit of >> it. The new group of people who are interested are trying to >> determine how they should move forward. There is some talk of breaking >> Commons Math into smaller components and possibly dropping some where >> there is no one to maintain it. >> > > The "Commons" project not being interested in hosting those components, > is the "incubator" a good place for the developers wishing to go in that > direction? > Perhaps before we move to next steps, could you provide some links to the discussion where it was decided that Commons is not interested in hosting these components? > > What's the next step? > Let's get to a common understanding of what went before.
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
Hi all. On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 11:01:13 -0700, Ralph Goers wrote: I thought this had been made clear. Several months Commons voted to make Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people involved with Commons Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for them, so they forked the project and left, effectively voiding the TLP vote since the proposed PMC is no longer valid. There is one person left who was very involved in Commons Math and a few other people who have expressed interest in joining the new community. So this is a situation where we have an already existing code base where a lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a bit of it. The new group of people who are interested are trying to determine how they should move forward. There is some talk of breaking Commons Math into smaller components and possibly dropping some where there is no one to maintain it. The "Commons" project not being interested in hosting those components, is the "incubator" a good place for the developers wishing to go in that direction? What's the next step? Regards, Gilles Ralph On Jun 11, 2016, at 6:21 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: If you have a functioning community around Commons Math already, why do you feel you need Incubation? People on a Math TLP would come out of the Commons PMC and simply submit a Board Resolution, and I doubt that there would be any objects. There are no legal concerns, no community training, no need for release management training, and so on... Or are you looking at a situation where the Commons community has no interest in Math subproject, and need new blood? Cheers Niclas On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:25 PM, James Carman wrote: We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted to gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by way of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may be), would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the ring? p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there who are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice. -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:21 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > Yep absolutely. I don't think the incubator has ever rejected a project? > We have discouraged some submissions. But I have never seen a formal submission be denied.
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:17 PM Ted Dunning wrote:
> Jochen,
>
> The need to build the community (nearly) from scratch is definitely NOT a
> reason for rejection. It is simply a risk factor that must be mitigated to
> succeed in incubation.
>
Yep absolutely. I don't think the incubator has ever rejected a project?
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Jochen Wiedmann <
> jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:29 PM, John D. Ament
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to.
> We
> > > have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community
> > doesn't
> > > work. It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do.
> >
> > Understood. On the other hand: Would that be sufficient reason for
> > rejecting a proposal? ("It didn't
> > work in the past" != "It won't work in this case")
> >
> >
> > --
> > The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
Jochen,
The need to build the community (nearly) from scratch is definitely NOT a
reason for rejection. It is simply a risk factor that must be mitigated to
succeed in incubation.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:29 PM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
>
> > We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to. We
> > have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community
> doesn't
> > work. It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do.
>
> Understood. On the other hand: Would that be sufficient reason for
> rejecting a proposal? ("It didn't
> work in the past" != "It won't work in this case")
>
>
> --
> The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
>
>
> http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:29 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to. We
> have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community doesn't
> work. It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do.
Understood. On the other hand: Would that be sufficient reason for
rejecting a proposal? ("It didn't
work in the past" != "It won't work in this case")
--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:06 PM, James Carman wrote: > That's what I figured. We could just go straight to TLP I suppose, if you > guys honestly don't think the Incubator would help. Is there any harm going > through the incubator? > No harm at all. It will increase visibility to a particularly swath of ASF-ians. I don't want to reignite the "straight to TLP" > debate. > Yeah debates not helpful in most cases. > > We honestly need some help/advice getting more folks involved. There have > been a ton of contributions through the the years, but most have been of > the "drive-by" variety. I believe it's a fairly popular library, even among > some the other Commons components. > I have been just such a drive-by contributor. And I was glad that the folks who maintained the product did so, although the reception I got the first time I came to commons math turned me off of Apache in general for several years.
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
That's what I figured. We could just go straight to TLP I suppose, if you guys honestly don't think the Incubator would help. Is there any harm going through the incubator? I don't want to reignite the "straight to TLP" debate. We honestly need some help/advice getting more folks involved. There have been a ton of contributions through the the years, but most have been of the "drive-by" variety. I believe it's a fairly popular library, even among some the other Commons components. On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 5:58 PM Ted Dunning wrote: > I don't think that there is a good definition of empty. The smaller the > initial community, the larger the effort to bootstrap is the observation, > but we don't really have a magic rule to apply. > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:55 PM, James Carman > wrote: > > > What do we consider "empty"? Is there some observed "critical mass"? > Right > > now I believe we are 4 (to contribute), but they have had users for a > long > > time. > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 5:29 PM John D. Ament > > wrote: > > > > > Generally speaking, incubation is to nurture a community to adopting > the > > > Apache Way. This includes self governance, community growth and > > licensing > > > policies. > > > > > > We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to. > We > > > have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community > > doesn't > > > work. It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do. > > > > > > John > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:07 PM Jochen Wiedmann < > > jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Ted Dunning > > > > wrote: > > > > > Looking back through the discussion, it is a bit of a problem that > > one > > > of > > > > > the major reasons given for the fork is that the team thought that > > they > > > > > didn't have a large enough PMC and that incubation wouldn't get > them > > > > enough > > > > > additional contributors. That made it seem like the project should > go > > > > > forward without meeting Apache requirements (i.e. outside). > > > > > > > > > > Is the situation really that different now that a vastly diminished > > > team > > > > is > > > > > likely to benefit from incubation enough to form a viable TLP? > > > > > > > > > > (I hate that this sounds negative ... it is a real question) > > > > > > > > We can't tell you. It is just, that some of us (including me) have > the > > > > feeling/opinion, that going through the Incubator is the path, where > > > > the chances are best to attract new committers. > > > > > > > > Jochen > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg > > > > > > > > - > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
I don't think that there is a good definition of empty. The smaller the initial community, the larger the effort to bootstrap is the observation, but we don't really have a magic rule to apply. On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:55 PM, James Carman wrote: > What do we consider "empty"? Is there some observed "critical mass"? Right > now I believe we are 4 (to contribute), but they have had users for a long > time. > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 5:29 PM John D. Ament > wrote: > > > Generally speaking, incubation is to nurture a community to adopting the > > Apache Way. This includes self governance, community growth and > licensing > > policies. > > > > We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to. We > > have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community > doesn't > > work. It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do. > > > > John > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:07 PM Jochen Wiedmann < > jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Ted Dunning > > > wrote: > > > > Looking back through the discussion, it is a bit of a problem that > one > > of > > > > the major reasons given for the fork is that the team thought that > they > > > > didn't have a large enough PMC and that incubation wouldn't get them > > > enough > > > > additional contributors. That made it seem like the project should go > > > > forward without meeting Apache requirements (i.e. outside). > > > > > > > > Is the situation really that different now that a vastly diminished > > team > > > is > > > > likely to benefit from incubation enough to form a viable TLP? > > > > > > > > (I hate that this sounds negative ... it is a real question) > > > > > > We can't tell you. It is just, that some of us (including me) have the > > > feeling/opinion, that going through the Incubator is the path, where > > > the chances are best to attract new committers. > > > > > > Jochen > > > > > > > > > -- > > > The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > >
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
What do we consider "empty"? Is there some observed "critical mass"? Right now I believe we are 4 (to contribute), but they have had users for a long time. On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 5:29 PM John D. Ament wrote: > Generally speaking, incubation is to nurture a community to adopting the > Apache Way. This includes self governance, community growth and licensing > policies. > > We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to. We > have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community doesn't > work. It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do. > > John > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:07 PM Jochen Wiedmann > > wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Ted Dunning > > wrote: > > > Looking back through the discussion, it is a bit of a problem that one > of > > > the major reasons given for the fork is that the team thought that they > > > didn't have a large enough PMC and that incubation wouldn't get them > > enough > > > additional contributors. That made it seem like the project should go > > > forward without meeting Apache requirements (i.e. outside). > > > > > > Is the situation really that different now that a vastly diminished > team > > is > > > likely to benefit from incubation enough to form a viable TLP? > > > > > > (I hate that this sounds negative ... it is a real question) > > > > We can't tell you. It is just, that some of us (including me) have the > > feeling/opinion, that going through the Incubator is the path, where > > the chances are best to attract new committers. > > > > Jochen > > > > > > -- > > The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" > > > > > > > http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > >
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:29 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to. We > have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community doesn't > work. It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do. > Frankly, the exceptions to this observation (such as Drill) pretty much reinforce the conclusion. Drill managed to build a community, but only because of a LOT of effort on the part of the founders of the project.
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
Generally speaking, incubation is to nurture a community to adopting the Apache Way. This includes self governance, community growth and licensing policies. We generally expect some kind of backing community to bring this to. We have seen pretty consistently that starting from an empty community doesn't work. It doesn't mean that it's impossible, but very hard to do. John On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:07 PM Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Ted Dunning > wrote: > > Looking back through the discussion, it is a bit of a problem that one of > > the major reasons given for the fork is that the team thought that they > > didn't have a large enough PMC and that incubation wouldn't get them > enough > > additional contributors. That made it seem like the project should go > > forward without meeting Apache requirements (i.e. outside). > > > > Is the situation really that different now that a vastly diminished team > is > > likely to benefit from incubation enough to form a viable TLP? > > > > (I hate that this sounds negative ... it is a real question) > > We can't tell you. It is just, that some of us (including me) have the > feeling/opinion, that going through the Incubator is the path, where > the chances are best to attract new committers. > > Jochen > > > -- > The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" > > > http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 12:25 PM, James Carman wrote: > We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted to > gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by way > of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may be), > would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to > becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the ring? > > p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there who > are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice. As I already wrote elsewhere: I could (and would) put an IPMC hat on. (And a mentors hat as well.) -- The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > Looking back through the discussion, it is a bit of a problem that one of > the major reasons given for the fork is that the team thought that they > didn't have a large enough PMC and that incubation wouldn't get them enough > additional contributors. That made it seem like the project should go > forward without meeting Apache requirements (i.e. outside). > > Is the situation really that different now that a vastly diminished team is > likely to benefit from incubation enough to form a viable TLP? > > (I hate that this sounds negative ... it is a real question) We can't tell you. It is just, that some of us (including me) have the feeling/opinion, that going through the Incubator is the path, where the chances are best to attract new committers. Jochen -- The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
Looking back through the discussion, it is a bit of a problem that one of the major reasons given for the fork is that the team thought that they didn't have a large enough PMC and that incubation wouldn't get them enough additional contributors. That made it seem like the project should go forward without meeting Apache requirements (i.e. outside). Is the situation really that different now that a vastly diminished team is likely to benefit from incubation enough to form a viable TLP? (I hate that this sounds negative ... it is a real question) On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: > I thought this had been made clear. Several months Commons voted to make > Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people involved with Commons > Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for them, so they forked the > project and left, effectively voiding the TLP vote since the proposed PMC > is no longer valid. There is one person left who was very involved in > Commons Math and a few other people who have expressed interest in joining > the new community. > > So this is a situation where we have an already existing code base where a > lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a bit of it. The new > group of people who are interested are trying to determine how they should > move forward. There is some talk of breaking Commons Math into smaller > components and possibly dropping some where there is no one to maintain it. > > Ralph > > > On Jun 11, 2016, at 6:21 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > > > If you have a functioning community around Commons Math already, why do > you > > feel you need Incubation? > > > > People on a Math TLP would come out of the Commons PMC and simply submit > a > > Board Resolution, and I doubt that there would be any objects. There are > no > > legal concerns, no community training, no need for release management > > training, and so on... > > > > Or are you looking at a situation where the Commons community has no > > interest in Math subproject, and need new blood? > > > > > > Cheers > > Niclas > > > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:25 PM, James Carman < > ja...@carmanconsulting.com> > > wrote: > > > >> We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted > to > >> gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by > way > >> of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may > be), > >> would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to > >> becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the > >> ring? > >> > >> p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there > who > >> are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice. > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > > http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
I thought this had been made clear. Several months Commons voted to make Math a TLP. But shortly after that most of the people involved with Commons Math felt that a TLP at the ASF would not work for them, so they forked the project and left, effectively voiding the TLP vote since the proposed PMC is no longer valid. There is one person left who was very involved in Commons Math and a few other people who have expressed interest in joining the new community. So this is a situation where we have an already existing code base where a lot of the people left are not familiar with quite a bit of it. The new group of people who are interested are trying to determine how they should move forward. There is some talk of breaking Commons Math into smaller components and possibly dropping some where there is no one to maintain it. Ralph > On Jun 11, 2016, at 6:21 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > If you have a functioning community around Commons Math already, why do you > feel you need Incubation? > > People on a Math TLP would come out of the Commons PMC and simply submit a > Board Resolution, and I doubt that there would be any objects. There are no > legal concerns, no community training, no need for release management > training, and so on... > > Or are you looking at a situation where the Commons community has no > interest in Math subproject, and need new blood? > > > Cheers > Niclas > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:25 PM, James Carman > wrote: > >> We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted to >> gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by way >> of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may be), >> would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to >> becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the >> ring? >> >> p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there who >> are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice. >> > > > > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
If you have a functioning community around Commons Math already, why do you feel you need Incubation? People on a Math TLP would come out of the Commons PMC and simply submit a Board Resolution, and I doubt that there would be any objects. There are no legal concerns, no community training, no need for release management training, and so on... Or are you looking at a situation where the Commons community has no interest in Math subproject, and need new blood? Cheers Niclas On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:25 PM, James Carman wrote: > We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted to > gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by way > of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may be), > would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to > becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the > ring? > > p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there who > are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice. > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
RE: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
Afternoon James I would ping Bill Barker, Mikkel Andersen, Sebastian Brissard or any math committer from the base project http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-math/team-list.html HTH Martin __ > From: ja...@carmanconsulting.com > Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 16:12:48 + > Subject: Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC? > To: dennis.hamil...@acm.org; general@incubator.apache.org > > I meant PPMC, yeah. > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 12:11 PM Dennis E. Hamilton > wrote: > > > Interesting. Does this mean migrating Commons Math to a math PPMC (not > > IPMC)? > > > > Would the scope be the same? > > > > Would Commons Math go to the Attic? > > > > Is there some problem that this is meant to solve? How is it a solution? > > > > - Dennis > > > > PS: I have labored through the dev-commons thread on [Math] Commons Math > > (r)evolution, and a few other of the June math-related posts. I think > > going through the effort to create an Incubation proposal would be useful. > > You will have to come to grips, and clarity, on whether and to what extent > > this is effectively an ASF-internal fork. Not that there is anything wrong > > with that. It is leaving it unresolved that strikes me as solving nothing. > > > > PPS: Not cross-posting. The interested parties may need to come to > > general-incubator to begin appreciating for themselves what is involved. > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: James Carman [mailto:ja...@carmanconsulting.com] > > > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 03:26 > > > To: Commons Developers List ; > > > general@incubator.apache.org > > > Subject: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC? > > > > > > We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted > > > to > > > gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by > > > way > > > of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may > > > be), > > > would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to > > > becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the > > > ring? > > > > > > p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there > > > who > > > are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice. > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > >
Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
I meant PPMC, yeah. On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 12:11 PM Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Interesting. Does this mean migrating Commons Math to a math PPMC (not > IPMC)? > > Would the scope be the same? > > Would Commons Math go to the Attic? > > Is there some problem that this is meant to solve? How is it a solution? > > - Dennis > > PS: I have labored through the dev-commons thread on [Math] Commons Math > (r)evolution, and a few other of the June math-related posts. I think > going through the effort to create an Incubation proposal would be useful. > You will have to come to grips, and clarity, on whether and to what extent > this is effectively an ASF-internal fork. Not that there is anything wrong > with that. It is leaving it unresolved that strikes me as solving nothing. > > PPS: Not cross-posting. The interested parties may need to come to > general-incubator to begin appreciating for themselves what is involved. > > > -Original Message- > > From: James Carman [mailto:ja...@carmanconsulting.com] > > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 03:26 > > To: Commons Developers List ; > > general@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC? > > > > We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted > > to > > gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by > > way > > of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may > > be), > > would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to > > becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the > > ring? > > > > p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there > > who > > are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice. > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
RE: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
Interesting. Does this mean migrating Commons Math to a math PPMC (not IPMC)? Would the scope be the same? Would Commons Math go to the Attic? Is there some problem that this is meant to solve? How is it a solution? - Dennis PS: I have labored through the dev-commons thread on [Math] Commons Math (r)evolution, and a few other of the June math-related posts. I think going through the effort to create an Incubation proposal would be useful. You will have to come to grips, and clarity, on whether and to what extent this is effectively an ASF-internal fork. Not that there is anything wrong with that. It is leaving it unresolved that strikes me as solving nothing. PPS: Not cross-posting. The interested parties may need to come to general-incubator to begin appreciating for themselves what is involved. > -Original Message- > From: James Carman [mailto:ja...@carmanconsulting.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 03:26 > To: Commons Developers List ; > general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC? > > We (the Commons PMC) have not decided yet what to do, but I just wanted > to > gauge the interest in joining the math IPMC if we choose to go TLP by > way > of the incubator. The idea would be that math (whatever its name may > be), > would go through the incubator in order to enrich its community prior to > becoming a TLP. Do we have any folks willing to throw their hat in the > ring? > > p.s. I've cross-posted to the incubator list as there are folks there > who > are very good at this stuff and could perhaps lend us some advice. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
