[PYTHON META-SIG] Re: pattern-sig -- tired of waiting...

Marc-Andre Lemburg lemburg@uni-duesseldorf.de
Thu, 27 Mar 1997 19:43:39 +0100

Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> >>>>> "MAL" == M -A Lemburg <lemburg@uni-duesseldorf.de> writes:
>     MAL> Could you or Barry be more specific with regard to the PSAs
>     MAL> objection to create a SIG for patterns, idioms and frameworks
>     MAL> ?
> My personal objection was that the mission for the SIG is too vague.
> My own model of a SIG is as a working group.

Ahem. Didn't you get all the mails concerning BSCW and setting
up a server to work on ? The mission can't be much more exact
because it is the very nature of patterns and the like to be
as general as possible.

> I don't think SIGs that are used as a general forum for discussion are
> as successful as those that are created with specific deliverables in
> mind -- the SIG as working group; e.g. MatrixSIG, Objective-C-SIG,
> StringSIG, PythonWIN-SIG, DocumentationSIG.  These are all formed to
> _produce_ something and so the discussions are most likely not of
> general interest to the list (as opposed to the products of those
> working groups).

The goal is to make code available that implements at least
some of the GOF-patterns in a reusable way. Apart from that,
gathering all the idioms and tricks floating around the net is
a very useful task and should be done by someone, so why not us ?
Our "products" would then be web pages explaining these findings.

> Second, because I think any discussion that would take place on
> PatternSIG can be of general interest to the Python audience at large,

That's exactly where the problem lies: I simply don't want to have
to explain everything to everyone everytime I post an idiom or
some code along the lines of a pattern, which a posting to the
main list should definitely include. And a second thing: finding
the interesting postings in the main list isn't that easy and
I wouldn't necessarily reach all other participants of the

> and because SIGs by their nature aren't going to be as widely
> dispersed as the newsgroup/main mailing list, I think at this time, a
> PatternSIG unnecessarily segregates the Python community.

Hmm. Can't follow you on that one: there are archives, which
can easily be browsed... even InfoSeek let's you scan these.

> I'd much rather see the you guys start talking about this stuff on the
> main mailing list.  Then we can start a SIG when there are
> well-defined deliverables (which could be, e.g. Web pages of Python
> patterns/idioms), or when the sustained traffic proves to be
> disruptive to the main list.

Oh well... we want to do something togehter, don't we ? So there'll
have to be some common working basis, a place to meet and a little
encouragement from the PSA... all we're getting is the standard
'why do this, when you can do that too, not bothering us'-mentality.

>     MAL> [Looks like, PSA membership isn't good for anything after
>     MAL> all...]
> I don't know why you say this.

Simple: frustration...

-- cheerios,

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

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