[Baypiggies] Please delete April

[Marilyn Davis]

----- On Monday, April 10, 2006 ben at groovie.org wrote:

> On Apr 10, 2006, at 12:35 AM, Stephen McInerney wrote:
> 
>> topic Tony and Wes suggest that we go ahead with this (who will
>> moderate?)
>> It got started when Ben Bangert raised the (somewhat off-topic)
>> issue of
>> group name in our thread about the Apr agenda:
>> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/baypiggies/2006-April/000368.html
> 
> Actually, I threw that in as Marilyn or one of the posts before me
> suggested the name was "unprofessional" so I tossed my 2 cents in.

Yes. Definitely my fault. I started it:
>> 
>> I would like to be active in a professional group that is centered
>> around Python.  But I am reticent to step forward here for two
>> reasons.  One is the name.  'Baypiggies' is cute but it doesn't say
>> what we are or suggest professionalism.  The other obstacle to my
>> whole-hearted participation is the expectation that private email
>> messages carry an obligation of secrecy for the recipient.  I wonder
>> if there is a mechanism for changing these things?

And my point is that I don't want to call myself a "piggie".  I don't think it's good for me or anyone.  Actually, a pig, itself, is one of my favorite animals for its intelligence and flavor, but in our langauge it also means sloppy, dirty, fat, and a policeman.  It's an insult.

But, even more important, if I'm going to put effort into an organization, I really want it to be one where there is some mechanism for change.  So I'm also looking for that in the name-change idea, and when I'm talking about architecture.

I found this pointer from Rich Morin interesting:
>> 
>> P.S.  I dunno if the Python community has anything like
>> he Perl Mongers, but I think they provide just
>> about the right amount of cohesion for the local
>> chapters, without requiring any formality at all.
>> See http://www.pm.org

And Dennis wrote to us about the homebrew meetings.  I don't really understand how they went, but it has an interesting and fun flavor.

I wonder, Dennis, might you be able to lead such an activity for the April meeting?  I know it's short notice, and I have no idea if it's a good idea, but I'm come for sure, all the way to San Bruno.

Here's the description that Dennis gave us:

---

The early '80s Homebrew Computer held (wildly IMO) successful meetings with
no speaker at all.  Their meetings started with an hour or so of what we
call "announcements".  Announcements, per se, are not the problem.  Indeed,
we would improve our announcement process along the Homebrew model so very
few would want to leave.

Homebrew formalized the announcement process: First there was a "mapping"
session followed by a "random access" session.  In the mapping session,
people would get up and announce the topic of what they had to say.  They
did *not* expound, discuss the subject matter, or offer verbal bullet
points.  This was the "news" equivalent of reading the headline
only.  Questions, slow delivery, and follow-up from the floor were all
squelched by the moderator.

The mapping sessions only purpose was to let the audience know who they
wanted to contact during the immediately following random access
session.  In random access, people would scramble to go talk (or not) with
people who made announcements during mapping.

I think this model is something to contemplate.  A mapping session is a
mapping session...  Topic announcements are *brief* (~60 seconds tops) and
without followup.  The moderator cuts off the long-winded.

In Homebrew, a substantial fraction of the audience ended up making an
announcement (50%?).  The mapping -> random access paradigm worked to
efficiently connect Homebrew attendees, one to another.  I think there is a
potential here to learn more about each other.

Now there may well be exceptional short discussion or presentation items of
general interest (e.g. a report).  Fine.  Let's schedule them on the agenda
and with a discussion leader for the topic who is responsible for coherence
and time budget.

Regards, Dennis