[meta-sig] PROPOSAL: Python Scarecrow SIG

[Barry A. Warsaw]

I'm surprised no one else has followed up to Jim's message, so I guess 
I'll be the first.

Obviously I support creating a sig to address these issues.  In
talking with some people, I've heard rumblings about creating a
super-sig that will attack 1) the interfaces issue; 2) the class/type
split; 3) static typing.

My own thoughts are that I'd like to keep the discussions separate
because I think we'll be more productive attacking each issue in a
separate forum.  In reality though, if we do that, it is highly likely
that the core contributors to the discussion will be subscribed to all
three lists.  That path leads to cross-posting such that they might as 
well be one list (and having 3 separate lists will just be confusing).

If we go with separate lists, then I'm not sure I like the name
"scarecrow-sig".  Cute, but too inside-y, and certainly not
descriptive of the topic.  "interface-sig" is about as good as I can
come up with, even though I personally oppose calling those
Fulton-thingies "interfaces" :-)

If on the other hand we merge the three topics, then I propose we call
it either "language-sig" or "object-sig".  Language-sig might be too
broad, but (to me) captures the notion that these are core Python
language issues we're dealing with.  On the other hand, it seems to me 
we're trying to clarify and extend Python's fundamental object model,
and how that interacts with other language features.  Thus "object-sig".

So please give your feedback: do we merge the three topics or keep
them separate?

-Barry