PSF Infrastructure has chosen Roundup as the issue tracker for Python development

Ron Adam rrr at ronadam.com
Sun Oct 22 20:31:04 CEST 2006


Kay Schluehr wrote:
> Anna Ravenscroft wrote:
> 
>> Interestingly enough, the quote of the day from Google on this email was:
>>
>> Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
>> change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
>> Margaret Mead
> 
> Commitment. Some individuals do the actual changes but others have to
> commit to make these changes effective. I've no indication in human
> history that groups are innovative or that they produce anything
> compelling new. Sometimes they support ventilation or being busy with
> "conservative innovation" or other oxymoronic activities. They serve a
> critical function but are most of the time uncritical to themselves and
> critical to everything and everyone else who is not using their own
> code(s). Identifying the enemy is still the prime function of the
> political and politics is all about groups. In this simple social
> scheme the "hero" indicates the border. The hero acts outside of the
> order of the group/society but the society uses the hero to indicate
> its own interior in some kind of hegelian twist: the hero is the
> otherness defining the self. The hero is the radical other supporting
> the groups identify. At best the hero becomes the prince/souvereign of
> the group and the group identifies itself as its knights. So the whole
> truth about "changing the world" might be just slightly more complex.

Committees often do fit this description.

Of course, this is a subject that is very dependent on viewpoints.

The world changes.  Sometimes those changes are the result of certain events 
where groups of people were present.  Sometimes individuals in the group had a 
significant effect on the outcome of those events.  Sometimes the individuals 
were committed to a common purpose.  Sometimes they were aided by sharing 
information and effort to achieve that purpose.  Sometimes the outcome was one 
that is very unlikely or impossible for a single individual to have produced.

It is this last point that is important.

Sometimes groups are formed with the desire of reproducing this last point.

Sometimes they succeed.


There is also the view point of informal groups of individuals working 
separately but having a significant combined effect.  This is probably the more 
common situation.

But not as common as the viewpoint you've stated above unfortunately.

Cheers,
   Ron



> Never thought having a small philosophical conversion with Margaret
> Mead beyond time and space. So many thanks to great Google and its
> devotees. 
> 
> Kay




More information about the Python-list mailing list