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
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 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
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 h
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 ob
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
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
__
> 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,
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 ;
> >
lto: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
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
bec
27 matches
Mail list logo
