Splitting comp.lang.python

[Gerrit Holl]

<quote name="Cameron Laird" date="951887760" email="claird at starbase.neosoft.com">
> In article <20000301105629.A4323 at nl.linux.org>,  <gerrit at nl.linux.org> wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >Quoting Fredrik Lundh <effbot at telia.com>,
> >> this month, comp.lang.python has seen nearly
> >> 50% more posts than any month before:
> >> 
> >>     http://www.egroups.com/group/python-list/info.html
> >>     http://starship.python.net/crew/just/FindMailStats/
> >
> >4000 messages in 29 days is a lot. it's 138 messages a day. Previous
> >discussions on splitting c.l.py always ended up in jokes and just
> >disappeared; I want to resurrect an informal discussion on wheter
> >to split the newsgroup or not; an RFD should be posted, of course,
> >but IANAL: does anyone have time to create an RFD?
> >
> >    I propose to split c.l.py in a technical part and a non-technical part.
> 			.
> 			.
> 			.
> No, no one has time to create an RFD.
> 
> I speak from experience.  Newsgroup creation requires
> more commitment, and even passion, than you'd expect.

I know it requires a lot of commitment. That's why I asked if
anyone having enough passion to want to take the time; I don't
understand how you can speak for everyone.

> Only someone not discouraged by my discouraging words
> will have the perseverance required to endure the pro-
> cess.

I understand.

> By the way, Gerritt, you and Fredrik and I seem to be
> running into each other a lot.

I noticed Fredrik and I ran into each other a lot, but I
haven't noticed your part in this.

> The most typical pattern is that you say something
> enthusiastic, and then effbot and I grumble at you.

I already suggested a few time that this might have to do
something with my lack of English; I try to say something,
but it doesn't "reach" you as I mean it.

> That's what I (and he?)
> will do now:  I don't understand your proposal.  If
> it's to spawn a comp.lang.python.advocacy, well, I
> think that's worth discussing.

That's exactly what I mean.

> If the suggestion is
> that speculations about timbot's ontology and book re-
> views be labeled "non-technical" ... I just don't see
> that as viable.

What do you imagine by the charter of such a potential newsgroup?

> I've got loads of informed opinions about newsgroup
> dynamics.  If people truly want to pursue this, and
> none of the other old-timers jump in, I'll write up
> some of what I've seen.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

</quote>

regards,
Gerrit.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- http://www.geekcode.com
Version: 3.12
GCS dpu s-:-- a14 C++++>$ UL++ P--- L+++ E--- W++ N o? K? w--- !O !M !V PS+ PE?
Y? PGP-- t- 5? X? R- tv- b+(++) DI D+ G++ !e !r !y
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----