...

I move that we setup a subgroup with this as the goal. I think it is a bad idea to say that is all that we will do and that everyone with different interests should just get off the list and go away.

As long as I and the others on this list who are interested and motivated to establish a Python-based curriculum have a forum in which to do so, I'm not overly concerned with exactly what that forum is called. Do others have an opinion on this matter? What other topic would then be discussed in this SIG?

Dustin

My sense is we've already covered this ground. We have: (a) people commited to developing exciting new Python- related learning tools, perhaps even making core enhancements to Python itself and (b) people ready to develop new curriculum using the existing tools, not waiting for any new developments (but happy to make use of whatever stuff the (a) people come up with). And probably the majority fall somewhere between (a) and (b). So what's the problem? Looks like a party to me. Speaking for myself, I'm clearly inclined in the (b) direction. I simply don't have the time or level of Python experience to be a member of the (a) team at this time. But I'm certainly OK with (a)s and (b)s sharing the same SIG. However, I don't want to waste people's time just sitting back and pumping out a lot of "good ideas" I'm not prepared to work on myself. Probably any of us could do so endlessly, without much effort -- not what I'd consider an especially valuable activity. So I guess there's another way to categorize is this: (i) those willing to do some work, either as a developer or a user of already existing assets (ii) those willing to talk about work they'd like other people to do, but without any real commitment to doing it themselves Every results-oriented list attracts a complement of (i)s and (ii)s. We gradually sort out who's in what category and move on from there. Kirby