New chairman

[Diez B. Roggisch]

> Good luck to you to. Its just that it .. well it has never been easy
> for me to introduce Python at work. This py3k, if I like it or not, is
> not making it easier.

And creating a fork makes it easier?
 
> Praktical, pragmatic, you know --- as I said, its not broken so lets
> brake it

Again - creating a fork makes that better?

> I just try to get things to work. And with some style too. Their
> connected. I think a 6 cylinder engine is one of the most stylist
> things there are. And when I was at a museum in Stocholm, I saw Henry
> Fords original enginge and was amazed, it looks just like the one in
> dads car.

This is a castironpi-esque metaphor. Guess what, I have an ever older one:
the wheels used by roman circus race wagons essentially look the same as on
a formula one car. Round, with a hub in the middle.

Now how about you throw that computers of your out of the window because it
is technology not available in ancient rome, and as change is bad according
to your view- away with it!
 
> Its not about changing and yes I dislike py3k, till somebody can
> convince me otherwise
> 
> Guido just seems to not care to post here anyways, so we can try to
> make our own branch/business

Again: how is that going to help?

You argue that a *fork* is what helps mitigating the problems *a fork called
Py3K* introduces (in your opinion). Now why do you think your company is
more likely to adopt the language "Sverker Nilsson his own fork of Python
that no one else cares about and that won't be supported" - short
SNHOFOPTNOECAATWBS?

If you don't like change - stick to python 2.5. Or whatever suits you. 

For the umpteenth time: how is that going to help you with your "don't
change" issues?

Diez