[PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG

[David Arnold]

Ok!  Thanks for your responses - there seem to be two issues to be
resolved:

1. the explicit inclusion of Microsoft's OLE (COM, ActiveX, ...) in
   the group's charter

2. possible names for the group/mailing list


Let me try to summarise ...

-->"Michael" == Michael McLay <mclay@eeel.nist.gov> writes:

  Michael> Should OLE be mentioned in the charter?  It's not
  Michael> distributed at this time, but that's the future claims.


Paul Everitt votes "no", citing the distributed objects crowd as being
a different group of people to the OLE crowd, but then changes his
mind as Jim Fulton thinks including OLE is a good idea.  Ken Manheimer
points out that the charter already covers "ORBs other than CORBA"
which would include a Distributed OLE.

I *do* think that OLE is important, especially now that it is built
in to NT4.0b2 and will be included in the "real" release.  I am
reluctant to focus on it because it is a very different universe to
CORBA and like ORBs.


Perhaps the second point of the charter

  o the use of ORBs other than CORBA with Python

could be expanded to

  o the use of other Distributed Object systems with Python, including
    ILU, Distributed OLE, <Daniel Larsson's ORB whose name i forget>,
    and others.


And to the name issue ...

-->"Robin" == Robin Friedrich <friedric@rose.rsoc.rockwell.com> writes:
  Robin> how about corba-sig? It seems as specific as the mission.

And then others followed with suggestions for "distobj-sig" with Roger
Masse pointing out that "DO" clashes with "Digital Object" in the
information science domain.


While I am sensitive to the state of Roger's mail folders ;-), I would
claim the DO is recogised as "Distributed Objects" in the DS domain
and doubtless many other things as well.  Which is probably an
argument that it is too generic.

I am very reluctant to call the group "corba-sig", especially since
the discussion at the conference which gave rise to the proposal was
generated by people using several different distributed object
systems.  CORBA is *too* focussed in my opinion.

Perhaps we can return to the conference proposal (which I attempted to
broaden) of an "ORB SIG"?  I favour DO-SIG as I feared that ORB-SIG
could be seen as being OMG CORBA specific, but perhaps it is the best
compromise?


Thanks again for your comments - how do you feel about the changes?


-- David Arnold   ,=================================================
================='                              +617 3654310 (voice)
CRC for Distributed Systems Technology          +617 3654311   (fax)
University of Queensland                    davida@pobox.com (email)
Australia                     <http://www.pobox.com/~davida>   (web)

  C++ compilers rarely optimize for the joy of programming - lwall



=================
META-SIG  - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists

send messages to: meta-sig@python.org
administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org
=================