Splitting comp.lang.python

Mikael Olofsson mikael at isy.liu.se
Wed Mar 1 20:19:48 CET 2000

On 01-Mar-00 Cameron Laird wrote:
 >  Seconded.  That is, I can imagine that creation of
 >  comp.lang.python.{gui,db,advocacy} would result in
 >  nice dialectical dynamics.  Most important, I pro-
 >  pose that the target audiences would quickly agree
 >  on which threads belong where.  I see the .gui and
 >  .db humming along with nice sustainable communities
 >  of discussants and topics.
 >  I'm a bit less convinced .advocacy would work.  It
 >  certainly would change the character of our present
 >  inclusive c.l.p.  Some of that change would be for
 >  the better ...

Well, I have very little experience with such subgroups. From what I've
read in this group in similar threads, it does work at least sometimes.
I would certainly say "good riddance" if we could loose some of the
discussions that take us nowhere, except that it drives some of us mad.
Those who find that kind of discussion interresting can do so in the
relative privacy of c.l.py.advocacy.

 >  Here's the hazard in all this:  timbot doesn't bother
 >  with c.l.p.gui because actual user interfaces are too
 >  practical for it (or whatever the random reason gener-
 >  ator happens to say that day).  Some part of the real
 >  progress with GUI bindings is dependent on general
 >  ideas about Pyextensibility and persistence methods
 >  and dictionary cleverness and the threading model and
 >  ... and, well, we'd miss him.

I think I've grasped what you mean here. You mean that the timbot wouldn't
follow you to c.l.py.gui, and those discussing GUIs would miss the timbot.
Finally, you're one of them. Hmm... I know the value of the cermons given 
by the timbot. You do agree with me that the percentage of the postings 
that concern GUIs is quite large, don't you. If I'm the only one who is 
not interested in GUIs, I won't persue this topic any more.

 >  Whatever we do or don't do with c.l.p will have both
 >  costs and benefits.  I take the possibility seriously
 >  enough that I'm criticizing it realistically.  If
 >  people want such a change, it can work, despite the
 >  melancholy it elicits from the nostalgia-afflicted.
 >  I do believe some changes are clearly more favorable
 >  than others (c.l.p.gui over c.l.p.tkinter), and I'll
 >  largely confine my remarks to those comparisons.
 >  Any change will involve a controversy over whether
 >  c.l.p becomes c.l.p.misc or stays unchanged.  Don't
 >  be distracted by that, at least for now.  Treat it as
 >  a technical requirement to suffer through the argument.

My main concern is the following. A few concentrated fairly low traffic
groups about different aspects concerning Python may purify the 
discussions, which I think makes them better. If someone relatively new 
to Python wants to follow a group about Python, it is more likely that 
he or she will stay tuned if it is possible to follow a group that is 
not discussing things that are not obviously related to the core language.
The same goes for people with a narrow interest in Python, like me. 
Finally, those who are only interested in certain aspects can in this way
easily disregard the others.

 >  I'm not so sanguine about c.l.p.platform.  What are
 >  examples of postings you anticipate there?

Hmm... It's an impression that I've had. But now when you mention it...
When I browse through the subjects of the posts of the last week, there
are only a few related to certain platforms. I rest my case.


E-Mail:  Mikael Olofsson <mikael at isy.liu.se>
WWW:     http://www.dtr.isy.liu.se/dtr/staff/mikael
Phone:   +46 - (0)13 - 28 1343
Telefax: +46 - (0)13 - 28 1339
Date:    01-Mar-00
Time:    19:49:07

This message was sent by XF-Mail.

More information about the Python-list mailing list