[Catalog-sig] Merge catalog-sig and distutils-sig
donald at stufft.io
Fri Mar 29 00:45:55 CET 2013
On Mar 28, 2013, at 7:28 PM, PJ Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <jacob at jacobian.org> wrote:
>> C'mon, folks, we're arguing about a name. That's about as close to
>> literal bikeshedding as we could get.
> I'm not arguing about the *name*. I just don't see the point in
> making everybody subscribe to a new list and change their mail filters
> (and update every book and webpage out there that mentions the
> distutils-sig), because a few people want to *change* the name -- a
> change that AFAICT doesn't actually provide any tangible benefit to
> anybody whatsoever.
>> How about we just let whoever has the keys make the change in whatever way's easiest and most logical for them?
> Because it's not up to just the person with the keys. Neither SIG is
> a mere mailing list, it's a Python special interest group, and SIGs
> have their own formation and termination processes.
> In particular, if you're going to start a new SIG, one of the
> requirements to be met is "in particular, no other SIG nor the general
> Python newsgroup is already more suitable" (per the Python SIG
> Creation Guidelines). It's hard to argue that distutils-sig isn't
> already more suitable than whatever is being proposed to take its
A requirement for a SIG is also that it has a clear goal and a start and end date. distutils-sig's goal is the distutils module. And the "end date" requirements seems to be completely ignored anymore so arguing strict adherence to the rules seems to be a wash.
I suggested packaging-sig because discussion jumps back and forth between distutils-sig and catalog-sig and neither name nor stated goal really reflected what the sig was actually about which was packaging in python in general. I also suggested packaging because it matched the other current sigs which are generic topics and not about a single module. But whatever, I hate the pointless duplication and just want to kill the overlap.
PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the Catalog-SIG