On 30 January 2016 at 15:24, Guido van Rossum
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Ben Finney
wrote: Guido van Rossum
writes: I don't understand the issues brought up about the SE site creation process. 22 years ago we managed to create a Usenet newsgroup, comp.lang.python. Surely today we can figure out how to create a SE site?
We have done, several times. One popular option is Askbot URL:https://pypi.python.org/pypi/askbot/. I'd be happy to see a PSF-blessed instance of Askbot running at a ‘foo.python.org’ domain.
That said, it would be wise to reflect that creating the software is not the hard part; continually responding to community needs, and managing the system so desirable behaviours are encouraged, is the hard part URL:http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2009/07/08/jeff-atwood-on-spit-and-....
Oh, I wasn't talking about creating more software. I was assuming we could find a way to join the SE network. IOW let Jeff Atwood and co. take care of that stuff, so we can focus on having meaningful discussions.
Area 51 is their process for doing that: http://area51.stackexchange.com/ However, while Stack Exchange style sites can be good for "Why is this existing thing the way it is?" Q&A, they're not really designed for proposing *changes* to things, discussing the prospective merits of those changes, and coming to a decision. Loomio is a good example of a site that offers some much better tools for collaborative discussion and decision making: https://www.loomio.org/ You still have the "critical mass" problem though, and for CPython, the critical mass of eyeballs is on python-dev and python-ideas - hence the inclination to try to update that infrastructure to Mailman 3 transparently (thus providing a much improved web gateway for potential new participants and better list management tools for existing subscribers), rather than trying to convince current list members to switch to a different technology. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia