[META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs

[Guido van Rossum]

This message from Geoff Furnish somehow didn't get distributed to the
meta-sig, even though Geoff cc'ed it (perhaps his syntax confused some
mailer).  Since I will be responding shortly to this in the meta-sig,
I'll forward his message here.

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Wed, 17 Dec 1997 16:02:30 +0000
From:    "Geoffrey M. Furnish" <furnish@xdiv.lanl.gov>
To:      Guido van Rossum <guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US>
cc:      meta-sig@python.org, Python/C++ SIG <c++-sig@python.org>, dubois1@llnl
	  .gov
Subject: RE: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs

As the C++ Sig chair, I would like to say that I strongly disagree
with this characterization.  Low traffic on a mailing list does not
directly imply lack of activity or interest.  As it happens, Paul
Dubois and I spent about an hour on the phone yesterday morning
(before this flame bait arrived in my inbox) discussing our ongoing
work on the C++ interface that we are constructing.  Both of us are
overseeing significant efforts at integrating Python into large
scientific C++ frameworks at our respective laboratories (LLNL and
LANL).  There is absolutely no question whatsoever that large numbers
of people are and will continue to be affected by what we are doing to 
integrate Python and C++.  These are primarily "internal" (ie,
laboratory staff) customers who for the most part, probably do not
participate directly on c.l.p.  Paul and I decided (while I was still
at LLNL) to carry on the C++/Python binding work in a public forum for 
the overall benefit of the worldwide Python community.  I regard any
suggestion that the C++ Sig should be shut down just because Paul and
I both prefer to avoid babbling inceasently into an archived newsgroup 
(which has a variety of legal ramifications for those of us working in 
defense laboratories--the spook wannabes among you should be able to
ponder that with amusement for quite some time...) but rather to only
make postings when we have something worthwhile to say, to be flatly
capricious in nature.

In particular, I would like to say very directly that I consider
message count to be an extraordinarily poor measure of the
worthfulness of a public forum.  I personally receive an average of
about 100 emails per day.  I personally cannot possibly endeavor to
participate regularly in c.l.p. in my current employment environment.
High volume fourms are quite literally the last thing on earth I
want.  What I want are highly focused, technical forums in which
the content/crap ratio is kept as high as possible and the volume
manageable.

In my opinion (as the SIG chair), if you were to actually be
participating on the C++ sig, you would conclude that your time was
not being wasted reading voluminous meanderings of people babbling
into their mail tools.  That the volume was acceptable, and the
content rich (modulo spams), and that in the main, when something
comes across that sig, it is worth reading and contains info from
people who have taken the time to make sure that what they have to say
is worth reading.  How you can say that this particular sig should be
killed, is frankly beyond me.

In particular, I am /not/ asking for an "extension" as the thread sig
dude did.  The PSA needs to decide whether it is willing to host
technical discussion about binding Python to C++ or not.  I thought
that had been decided.  Evidently it needs to be redecided.  In
particular, I am not interested in entertaining injunctions to get the 
sig volume up by a certain date or else.  I am busy with my regular
job, a portion of which involves binding Python to C++, and I (and
others) can only commit to making public posts at the rate that we
have something valuable to say, whatever that is--and it can't be
determined in advance by fiat by people who are not above us in our
respective org charts.

If it is your intent to kill the C++ sig, let's get it over with.  But 
I am saying here and now, for the record, that I consider that to be
an exceedingly ill conceived course of action.  Paul Dubois and I have 
both expended significant effort to condition laborotory policies into 
such a manner that allows laboratory employees to participate in
Python public forums.  If the PSA now turns around and says "well,
you're not blabbering enough into this channel so we'll have to shut
it down", that will have an obvious and undeniable chilling effect on
Python users within the laboratories.  Does that /really/ make sense
to you?

If however, the PSA is willing to host discussion about binding Python 
to C++, then let's let this be the last time this issue has to be
redecided. 

As the SIG Chair, I certainly consider it one of my responsibilities
to inform the PSA when the SIG has run its course.  In my opinion,
that time has not yet come.

Guido van Rossum writes:
 > I went through the various SIG archives, mostly at Findmail, and the
 > following sigs are clearly in coma (and have been for a long time).  I
 > think that comatose SIGs don't serve any purpose, and that these SIG
 > mailing lists should be terminated.  Their archives should be saved,
 > of course.
 > 
 > Here are the numbers of messages since August:
 > 
 > c++-sig (2 in Aug, 1 in Oct, 7 in Nov -- of which 2 spams and one
 >          reply to a spam)
 > 
 > locator-sig (0 in Aug-Oct, 1 in Nov, 6 in Dec)
 > 
 > objc-sig (0 in Aug, 8 in Sep, 4 in Oct, 2 in Dec)
 > 
 > pattern-sig (5 in Aug, 4 in Oct)
 > 
 > plot-sig (38 in Sep, 12 in Oct, 10 in Nov, 2 in Dec)
 > 
 > progenv-sig (2 in Aug, 1 in Nov, 1 in Dec)
 > 
 > thread-sig (2 in Aug, 19 in Sep, 9 in Nov, 2 in Dec)
 > 
 > web-sig (1 in Aug, 0 since)
 > 
 > With these traffic levels, you can't maintain that there is an
 > interest that warrants a separate SIG -- people interested in these
 > subjects are better off using the main list, where they are more
 > likely to reach other individuals with the same interests.
 > 
 > One could argue that there's still hope for the plot-sig and
 > thread-sig. Still, the trend is unmistakable -- they can be given an
 > extension of three months to get their act together.
 > 
 > I also really like Paul Prescod's idea for the proposed SGML SIG: a
 > fixed expiration time of 6 month, after which it is killed
 > automatically unless there's a proven interest to continue.  This
 > should be done for all SIGs, including the currently successful ones.
 > 
 > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
 > 
 > _______________
 > META-SIG  - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists
 > 
 > send messages to: meta-sig@python.org
 > administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org
 > _______________

------- End of Forwarded Message


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

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