[meta-sig] Retired SIGS, SIG ownership

[Martin v. Loewis]

> No problem closing down the compiler-sig as it hasn't been active,
> except two general questions come to mind:
> 
> 1) Why do we have to shutdown the compiler-sig list, which many people
>    are subscribed to and which has periodic traffic?  The general
>    trend these days has been to take specialized discussions off
>    python-dev and move them to mailing lists.

I guess if there is interest in keeping the mailing list, the SIG
should be kept alive. However, I was really questioning whether there
is interest in keeping the mailing list. I think traffic should go to
python-list (i.e. the newsgroup) - but I'm not on the list, so I
cannot comment whether its readership would like to continue to get
rare traffic.

> 2) What's the point of having sigs?  In the absence of a maintainable
>    Python Web site, I can't tell the difference between a SIG and a
>    mailing list.  We seem to create mailing lists without any meta-sig
>    process, e.g. iterators, sets, crypto.  Does the existence of SIGs
>    make a difference to anyone?

For XML-SIG, we've managed to get a maintainable web site - just not
on python.org. The question sounds backwards to me, and it should
read: What can we do to make the SIG pages maintainable again?

If keeping them on the python.org is not suitable, perhaps SourceForge
would be happy to host them? Or Digicool?

Regards,
Martin