[meta-sig] Re: [Types-sig] The Types-SIG is comatose. Let's retire it.
Fri, 03 Dec 1999 09:27:38 -0500
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> It's time for the twice yearly ritual of looking for comatose SIGs.
> From the archives, it looks like the types-sig is the only dud amongst
> the crowd: all other SIGs are doing well (some are doing *extremely*
> well, like the doc-sig and the matrix-sig).
> The types-sig hasn't had traffic since August (4 messages) and in all
> of 1999 it has only has 12 messages.
> Type-sig, what do you have to say for yourself?
As others have pointed out, there is clear evidence that the
SIG is inactive and should be deactivated.
I was a bit frustrated that the SIG tried to address three topics that
I consider independent:
- Classes vs types
- Static typing
This hurt the focus of the sig and emotion from some topics
tended to bleed over to others. For example, I think the
interfaces work was hurt by association with the typing
I'll find some time over the next few days to try to
sumarize and report on work in the sig on the first two
topics. Perhaps someone else will do the same for static
Even if the SIG goes away, I think some report on the SIGs
activity should be made at IPC8 (assuming there is a SIG
Jim Fulton mailto:email@example.com Python Powered!
Technical Director (888) 344-4332 http://www.python.org
Digital Creations http://www.digicool.com http://www.zope.org
Under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(b)(1)(C), Sec.227(a)(2)(B) This email
address may not be added to any commercial mail list with out my
permission. Violation of my privacy with advertising or SPAM will
result in a suit for a MINIMUM of $500 damages/incident, $1500 for