On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> This thread seems to have died. I am confused why no proposal has been
> created. 7 people is certainly enough to propose something. Or is the desire
> simply to remain a subproject of Commons?
I diagnose some authority confusion here. I fea
This thread seems to have died. I am confused why no proposal has been created.
7 people is certainly enough to propose something. Or is the desire simply to
remain a subproject of Commons?
Ralph
> On Jun 18, 2016, at 7:08 PM, Niall Pemberton
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Gil
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 01:55:12 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Hi Gilles,
>>
>>
>> Gilles wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 11:00:34 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Gilles
>>
>> [snip]
>>
You can never go home. No project stays the same
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Gilles
wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 11:53:37 -0500, Matt Benson wrote:
>
>> I think it is indicative of the position held by many, myself included,
>> that a set of focused, math-related artifacts do not make sense at the
>> Commons component level, and should be
On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 01:55:12 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 11:00:34 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Gilles
[snip]
You can never go home. No project stays the same.
Well, some people in CM for years did their best to
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 11:00:34 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Gilles
[snip]
>> 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 wi
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 14:42:46 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Hi Gilles,
>>
>> Gilles wrote:
>>
>>> 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 s
> To: dev@commons.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [ALL] Volunteers for a Math IPMC?
>
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 11:53:37 -0500, Matt Benson wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 2016 9:28 AM, "Gilles"
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >>
> >> O
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
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
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 w
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 11:53:37 -0500, Matt Benson wrote:
On Jun 18, 2016 9:28 AM, "Gilles"
wrote:
Hi.
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 14:42:46 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:01:20 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
Gilles,
Thanks for links.
I just read tha
On Jun 18, 2016 9:28 AM, "Gilles" wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
>
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 14:42:46 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gilles,
>>
>> Gilles wrote:
>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:01:20 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
Gilles,
Thanks for links.
I just read that (l
Hi.
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 14:42:46 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
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
Could we start something in the sandbox? It's not modifying existing code.
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 8:43 AM Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Gilles,
>
> Gilles wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:01:20 -0700, Ted Dunning wrote:
> >> Gilles,
> >>
> >> Thanks for links.
> >>
> >> I just read t
Hi Gilles,
Gilles wrote:
> 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
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
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
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 shortl
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 C
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
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.
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
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
> wrot
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 o
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 except
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
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 thro
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 contr
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
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
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 nee
Even though I am not a SME, I'd be happy to help Math as the community sees
fit, IPMC, TLP, PMC or any TLA ;-)
Gary
On Jun 11, 2016 3:26 AM, "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 choo
33 matches
Mail list logo
