I think that we need a forum somewhere between comp.lang.python and pythondev. Let's call it python-lang. By virtue of being buried on the "sigs" page, python-lang would be mostly only accessible to those who have more than a cursory interest in Python. Furthermore, you would have to go through a simple administration procedure to join, as you do with any mailman list. Appropriate topics of python-lang would be new ideas about language features. Participants would be expected and encouraged to use archives and FAQs to avoid repetitive topics. Particular verboten would be "ritual topics": indentation, case sensitivity, integer division, language comparisions, etc. These discussions would be redirected loudly and firmly to comp.lang.python. Python-dev would remain invitation only but it would focus on the day to day mechanics of getting new versions of Python out the door. -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself "Hardly anything more unwelcome can befall a scientific writer than having the foundations of his edifice shaken after the work is finished. I have been placed in this position by a letter from Mr. Bertrand Russell..." - Frege, Appendix of Basic Laws of Arithmetic (of Russell's Paradox)
[ The correct forum is probably meta-sig. ] IMO, I don't see a need for yet another forum. The dividing lines become a bit too blurry, and it will result in questions like "where do I post this?" Or "what is the difference between python-lang@python.org and python-list@python.org?" Cheers, -g On Wed, 31 May 2000, Paul Prescod wrote:
I think that we need a forum somewhere between comp.lang.python and pythondev. Let's call it python-lang.
By virtue of being buried on the "sigs" page, python-lang would be mostly only accessible to those who have more than a cursory interest in Python. Furthermore, you would have to go through a simple administration procedure to join, as you do with any mailman list.
Appropriate topics of python-lang would be new ideas about language features. Participants would be expected and encouraged to use archives and FAQs to avoid repetitive topics. Particular verboten would be "ritual topics": indentation, case sensitivity, integer division, language comparisions, etc. These discussions would be redirected loudly and firmly to comp.lang.python.
Python-dev would remain invitation only but it would focus on the day to day mechanics of getting new versions of Python out the door.
-- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself "Hardly anything more unwelcome can befall a scientific writer than having the foundations of his edifice shaken after the work is finished. I have been placed in this position by a letter from Mr. Bertrand Russell..." - Frege, Appendix of Basic Laws of Arithmetic (of Russell's Paradox)
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
-- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Greg Stein wrote:
[ The correct forum is probably meta-sig. ]
IMO, I don't see a need for yet another forum. The dividing lines become a bit too blurry, and it will result in questions like "where do I post this?" Or "what is the difference between python-lang@python.org and python-list@python.org?"
Well, you admit that yhou don't read python-list, right? Most of us don't, most of the time. Instead we have important discussions about the language's future on python-dev, where most of the Python community cannot participate. I'll say it flat out: I'm uncomfortable with that. I did not include meta-sig because (or python-list) because my issue is really with the accidental elitism of the python-dev setup. If python-dev participants do not agree to have important linguistic discussions in an open forum then setting up the forum is a waste of time. That's why I'm feeling people here out first. -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself "I want to give beauty pageants the respectability they deserve." - Brooke Ross, Miss Canada International
On Wed, 31 May 2000, Paul Prescod wrote:
Greg Stein wrote:
[ The correct forum is probably meta-sig. ]
IMO, I don't see a need for yet another forum. The dividing lines become a bit too blurry, and it will result in questions like "where do I post this?" Or "what is the difference between python-lang@python.org and python-list@python.org?"
Well, you admit that yhou don't read python-list, right?
Hehe... you make it sound like I'm a criminal on trial :-) "And do you admit that you don't read that newsgroup? And do you admit that you harbor irregular thoughts towards c.l.py posters? And do you admit to obscene thoughts about Salma Hayek?" Well, yes, no, and damn straight. :-)
Most of us don't, most of the time. Instead we have important discussions about the language's future on python-dev, where most of the Python community cannot participate. I'll say it flat out: I'm uncomfortable with that. I
I share that concern, and raised it during the formation of python-dev. It appears that the pipermail archive is truncated (nothing before April last year). Honestly, though, I would have to say that I am/was more concerned with the *perception* rather than actual result.
did not include meta-sig because (or python-list) because my issue is really with the accidental elitism of the python-dev setup. If
I disagree with the term "accidental elitism." I would call it "purposeful meritocracy." The people on python-dev have shown over the span of *years* that they are capable developers, designers, and have a genuine interest and care about Python's development. Based on each person's merits, Guido invited them to participate in this forum. Perhaps "guido-advisors" would be more appropriately named, but I don't think Guido likes to display his BDFL status more than necessary :-)
python-dev participants do not agree to have important linguistic discussions in an open forum then setting up the forum is a waste of time. That's why I'm feeling people here out first.
Personally, I like the python-dev setting. The noise here is zero. There are some things that I'm not particularly interested in, thus I pay much less attention to them, but those items are never noise. I *really* like that aspect, and would not care to start arguing about language development in a larger forum where noise, spam, uninformed opinions, and subjective discussions take place. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Greg Stein wrote:
Hehe... you make it sound like I'm a criminal on trial :-)
Sorry about that. But I'll bet you didn't expect this inquisition did you?
I share that concern, and raised it during the formation of python-dev. It appears that the pipermail archive is truncated (nothing before April last year). Honestly, though, I would have to say that I am/was more concerned with the *perception* rather than actual result.
Right, that perception is making people in comp-lang-python get a little frustrated, paranoid, alienated and nasty. And relaying conversations from here to there and back puts Fredrik in a bad mood which isn't good for anyone.
did not include meta-sig because (or python-list) because my issue is really with the accidental elitism of the python-dev setup. If
I disagree with the term "accidental elitism." I would call it "purposeful meritocracy."
The reason I think that it is accidental is because I don't think that anyone expected so many of us to abandon comp.lang.python and thus our direct connection to Python's user base. It just happened that way due to human nature. That forum is full of stuff that you or I don't care about -- compiling on AIX, ADO programming on Windows, Perl idioms, LDAP (oops, that's here!) etc, and this one is noise-free. I'm saying that we could have a middle ground where we trade a little noise for a little democracy -- if only in perception. I think that perl-porters and linux-kernel are open lists? The dictators and demigods just had to learn to filter a little. By keeping "python-dev" for immediately important things and implementation details, we will actually make it easier to get the day to day pumpkin passing done. -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself "I want to give beauty pageants the respectability they deserve." - Brooke Ross, Miss Canada International
On Wed, 31 May 2000, Paul Prescod wrote:
Greg Stein wrote:
Hehe... you make it sound like I'm a criminal on trial :-)
Sorry about that. But I'll bet you didn't expect this inquisition did you?
Well, of course not. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Hmm. But you're not Spanish. Dang...
I share that concern, and raised it during the formation of python-dev. It appears that the pipermail archive is truncated (nothing before April last year). Honestly, though, I would have to say that I am/was more concerned with the *perception* rather than actual result.
Right, that perception is making people in comp-lang-python get a little frustrated, paranoid, alienated and nasty. And relaying conversations from here to there and back puts Fredrik in a bad mood which isn't good for anyone.
Understood. I don't have a particular solution to the problem, but I also believe that python-lang is not going to be a benefit/solution. Hmm. How about this: you stated the premise is to generate proposals for language features, extensions, additions, whatever. If that is the only goal, then consider a web-based system: anybody can post a "feature" with a description/spec/code/whatever; each feature has threaded comments attached to it; the kicker: each feature has votes (+1/+0/-0/-1). When you have a feature with a total vote of +73, then you know that it needs to be looked at in more detail. All votes are open (not anonymous). Features can be revised, in an effort to remedy issues raised by -1 voters (and thus turn them into +1 votes). People can review features and votes in a quick pass. If they prefer to take more time, then they can also review comments. Of course, this is only a suggestion. I've got so many other projects that I'd like to code up right now, then I would not want to sign up for something like this :-)
did not include meta-sig because (or python-list) because my issue is really with the accidental elitism of the python-dev setup. If
I disagree with the term "accidental elitism." I would call it "purposeful meritocracy."
The reason I think that it is accidental is because I don't think that anyone expected so many of us to abandon comp.lang.python and thus our direct connection to Python's user base.
Good point. I would still disagree with your "elitism" term, but the side-effect is definitely accidental and unfortunate. It may even be arguable whether python-dev *is* responsible for that. The SIGs had much more traffic before python-dev, too. I might suggest that the SIGs were the previous "low-noise" forum (in favor of c.l.py). python-dev yanked focus from the SIGs, and only a little from c.l.py (I think c.l.py's burgeoning traffic reduced readership on its own).
It just happened that way due to human nature. That forum is full of stuff that you or I don't care about -- compiling on AIX, ADO programming on Windows, Perl idioms, LDAP (oops, that's here!) etc, and this one is noise-free. I'm saying that we could have a middle ground where we trade a little noise for a little democracy -- if only in perception.
Admirable, but I think it would be ineffectual. People would be confused about where to post. Too many forums, with arbitrary/unclear lines about which to use. How do you like your new job at DataChannel? Rate it on 1-100. "83" you say? Well, why not 82? What is the difference between 82 and 83? "Why does this post belong on c.l.py, and not on python-lang?" The result will be cross-posting because people will want to ensure they reach the right people/forum. Of course, people will also post to the "wrong" forum. Confusion, lack of care, whatever.
I think that perl-porters and linux-kernel are open lists? The dictators and demigods just had to learn to filter a little. By keeping "python-dev" for immediately important things and implementation details, we will actually make it easier to get the day to day pumpkin passing done.
Yes, they are. And Dick Hardt has expressed the opinion that perl-porters is practically useless. He was literally dumbfounded when I told him that python-dev is (near) zero-noise. The Linux guys filter very well. I don't know enough of, say, Alan's or Linus' other mailing subscriptions to know whether that is the only thing they subscribe to, or just one of many. I could easily see keeping up with linux-kernel if that was your only mailing list. I also suspect there is plenty of out-of-band mail going on between Linus and his "lieutenants" when they forward patches to him (and his inevitable replies, rejections, etc). Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
On Wed, 31 May 2000, Greg Stein wrote:
Hmm. How about this: you stated the premise is to generate proposals for language features, extensions, additions, whatever. If that is the only goal, then consider a web-based system: anybody can post a "feature" with a description/spec/code/whatever; each feature has threaded comments attached to it; the kicker: each feature has votes (+1/+0/-0/-1).
Gee, this sounds familiar. (Hint: starts with an R and has seven letters.) Why are we using Jitterbug again? Does anybody even submit things there, and still check the Jitterbug indexes regularly? Okay, Roundup doesn't have voting, but it does already have priorities and colour-coded statuses, and voting would be trivial to add. -- ?!ng
On Wed, 31 May 2000, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
On Wed, 31 May 2000, Greg Stein wrote:
Hmm. How about this: you stated the premise is to generate proposals for language features, extensions, additions, whatever. If that is the only goal, then consider a web-based system: anybody can post a "feature" with a description/spec/code/whatever; each feature has threaded comments attached to it; the kicker: each feature has votes (+1/+0/-0/-1).
Gee, this sounds familiar. (Hint: starts with an R and has seven letters.) Why are we using Jitterbug again? Does anybody even submit things there, and still check the Jitterbug indexes regularly?
Okay, Roundup doesn't have voting, but it does already have priorities and colour-coded statuses, and voting would be trivial to add.
Does Roundup have a web-based interface, where I can see all of the features, their comments, and their votes? Can the person who posted the original feature/spec update it? (or must they followup with a modified proposal instead) Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
On Wed, 31 May 2000, Greg Stein wrote:
Does Roundup have a web-based interface,
Yes.
where I can see all of the features, their comments, and their votes?
At the moment, you see date of last activity, description, priority, status, and fixer (i.e. person who has taken responsibility for the item). No votes, but as i said, that would be really easy.
Can the person who posted the original feature/spec update it?
Each item has a bunch of mail messages attached to it. Anyone can edit the description, but that's a short one-line summary; the only way to propose another design right now is to send in another message. Hey, i admit it's a bit primitive, but it seems significantly better than nothing. The software people at ILM have coped with it fairly well for a year, and for the most part we like it. Go play: http://www.lfw.org/ping/roundup/roundup.cgi Username: test Password: test Username: spam Password: spam Username: eggs Password: eggs -- ?!ng
Ka-Ping Yee writes:
On Wed, 31 May 2000, Greg Stein wrote:
Can the person who posted the original feature/spec update it?
Each item has a bunch of mail messages attached to it. Anyone can edit the description, but that's a short one-line summary; the only way to propose another design right now is to send in another message.
I thought the roundup interface was quite nice, esp. with the nosy lists and such. I'm sure there are a number of small issues, but nothing Ping can't deal with in a matter of minutes. ;) One thing that might need further consideration is that a feature proposal may need a slightly different sort of support; it makes more sense to include more than the one-liner summary, and that should be modifiable as discussions show adjustments may be needed. That might be doable by adding a URL to an external document rather than including the summary in the issues database. I'd love to get rid of the Jitterbug thing! -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> PythonLabs at BeOpen.com
"KY" == Ka-Ping Yee <pingster@ilm.com> writes:
KY> Gee, this sounds familiar. (Hint: starts with an R and has KY> seven letters.) Why are we using Jitterbug again? Does KY> anybody even submit things there, and still check the KY> Jitterbug indexes regularly? Jitterbug blows. KY> Okay, Roundup doesn't have voting, but it does already have KY> priorities and colour-coded statuses, and voting would be KY> trivial to add. Roundup sounded just so cool when ?!ng described it at the conference. I gotta find some time to look at it! :) -Barry
Greg Stein wrote:
...
People can review features and votes in a quick pass. If they prefer to take more time, then they can also review comments.
I like this idea for its persistence but I'm not convinced that it serves the same purpose as the give and take of a mailing list with many subscribers.
Admirable, but I think it would be ineffectual. People would be confused about where to post. Too many forums, with arbitrary/unclear lines about which to use.
To me, they are clear: * anything Python related can go to comp.lang.python, but many people will not read it. * anything that belongs to a particular SIG goes to that sig. * any feature suggestions/debates that do not go in a particular SIG (especially things related to the core language) go to python-lang * python-dev is for any message that has the words "CVS", "patch", "memory leak", "reference count" etc. in it. It is for implementing the design that Guido refines out of the rough and tumble of python-lang. -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself At the same moment that the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission are trying to restrict the negative consequences of monopoly, the Commerce Department and the Congress are helping to define new intellectual property rights, rights that have a significant potential to create new monopolies. This is the policy equivalent of arm-wrestling with yourself. - http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/04/07/greenspan/index.html
Paul Prescod wrote:
Greg Stein wrote:
Admirable, but I think it would be ineffectual. People would be confused about where to post. Too many forums, with arbitrary/unclear lines about which to use.
To me, they are clear:
Of course they are ;-). While something doesn't seem right about the current set up, and c.l.py is still remarkably civilized, the fact is that the hotheads who say "I'll never use Python again if you do something as brain-dead as [ case- insensitivity | require (host, addr) tuples | ''.join(list) | ... ]" will post their sentiments to every available outlet. I agree the shift of some of these syntax issues from python- dev to c.l.py was ugly, but the truth is that: - no new arguments came from c.l.py - the c.l.py discussion was much more emotional - you can't keep out the riff-raff without inviting reasonable accusations of elitistism - the vast majority of, erm, "grass-roots" syntax proposals are absolutely horrid. (As you surely know, Paul, from your types-SIG tenure; proposing syntax changes without the slightest intention of putting any effort into them is a favorite activity of posters.) - Gordon
participants (6)
-
bwarsaw＠python.org -
Fred L. Drake, Jr. -
Gordon McMillan -
Greg Stein -
Ka-Ping Yee -
Paul Prescod