[META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs

[Guido van Rossum]

Geoff,

I understand that you are doing a lot of work on a C++ binding for
Python.  I am not criticizing this work -- in fact, I'd like to hear
more about it.

I believe that Python SIGs use up resources, and that these resources
should be warranted.  If no-one appears to be using the resources,
they are better recycled.  The list of SIGs as presented on the PSA
SIGs web page (http://www.python.org/sigs/) should adequately reflect
those SIGs that are actually doing useful work -- lest people
subscribe and then find out that there's nothing there.  A bunch of
SIGs were established as a forum for a particular project or
discussion where the traffic on the SIG's mailing list clearly
indicates that the project or discussion is no longer alive, and these
should be wrapped up.

My message -- I think "flame bait" is too strong a characterization,
although it was strongly worded on purpose -- was intended to find out
whether there's hope for those comatose SIGs.

The traffic on the C++ SIG before yesterday *does* suggest that it is
comatose.  Here's a summary of the traffic since July 1st, according
to Findmail (http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/c++-sig/):

July
	- message from Skip Montanaro about wrapping VTK; no responses
	- apology from someone about inserting old mail to the list

August
	- question about examples of how to use the C++ module, and answer

September
	- nothing

October
	- one spam

November
	- question about whether there is any traffic;  an answer, and
	  a response to the answer
	- two spams and a response to one of the spams
	- another question about what's going on

This hardly characterizes an active SIG!

Now, Geoff writes:

> Low traffic on a mailing list does not directly imply lack of
> activity or interest.

and continues to explain how he and Paul Dubois are working on the
project behind the scenes.

I think this indicates that perhaps instead of a SIG, what is really
needed here is a web page indicating the status of the project.  There
are lots of great ongoing projects in the Python world that don't have
their own SIG.  They are being carried out by a small enough group of
people that they keep in touch via personal email, or perhaps they
aren't interested in soliciting comments from a general audience.
This seems to be the case for your project.

> 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.

I am a subscriber of the C++ SIG, and I have not seen worthwhile
discussion since July (an arbitrary cut-off date).  I expect that
even if you don't read c.l.p, if you have an announcement to make it
is better off there than in the C++-SIG; I would presume that people
interested in the results of your work would not bother to subscribe
to the SIG mailing list, since it appears to be unused.

> 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.

It was decided based on the expectation that the forum would be used.
If it isn't used, you can't blame me for trying to do a little bit of
garbage collection.

> 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?

Is this really so?  I am proposing to shut down several unused
channels.  What's the damage?  I am not excluding your labs from any
kind of participation (far from it).

> 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. 

No, the idea for SIGs has always been that idle SIGs should be retired
(without deleting their archives, of course), lest there be no space
for new ones.  It's just that we have been extremely lenient so far.

> 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.

I'm not unilaterally deciding that the C++ SIG should be terminated
(Ken's actions earlier today were premature and have been reverted).
But I do want to know what your plans for the SIG are.

--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
_______________