[Edu-sig] Lets work on the adgenda

[Kirby Urner]

>> 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