From arnold@dstc.edu.au Tue Jul 30 09:05:55 1996 From: arnold@dstc.edu.au (David Arnold) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 18:05:55 +1000 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG Message-ID: <199607300805.SAA09238@foxtail.dstc.edu.au> Hi all! At the conference, it was generally agreed that there was a need for a "Distributed Object" SIG as a place to coordinate work on distributed object programming using Python. Jim Fulton and I were generously nominated to manage the group and hence this request ... ;-) Having initially contacted Ken Manheimer, I have now perused the SIG creation pages and developed a rough outline for the group's charter. The short blurb could be DO-SIG: A Special Interest Group for Distributed Object programming in Python And the mission/majordomo info/web page This SIG provides a forum for discussion of issues concerning the use of Distributed Object technologies with Python. It is specifically charged with developing a CORBA binding for Python and submitting it to the OMG for standardisation. All aspects of distributed, object oriented programming in Python may be discussed. Examples include o design and development of a CORBA binding for Python o the use of ORBs other than CORBA with Python o Remote Method Invocation mechanism design and implementation o Distributed Objects and WWW integration o general Python distributed programming issues Here are some important addresses for using the list o Content submissions addr: do-sig@python.org o Subscriptions addr: do-sig-request@python.org o List admin addr: do-sig-admin@python.org o List owner addr: do-sig-owner@python.org (To get instructions on using the list, send a message containing only the word 'help' in the body to the subscriptions address, do-sig-request@python.org . You can contact the list owner if you need individual help.) A (simply copied) HTML version is available at I'd welcome any feedback on the wording, content, appropriateness, etc of either blurb - please feel free to comment. Finally - does everyone support the creation of this SIG? I think that we have some valuable work to do, raising the profile of Python in the wider community and making new facilities available within the language. I think that the specific nature of the work and the potential volume warrant a separate list, rather than cluttering/being lost in the general traffic. Thanks, -- David Arnold ,================================================= =================' +617 3654310 (voice) CRC for Distributed Systems Technology +617 3654311 (fax) University of Queensland davida@pobox.com (email) Australia (web) C++ compilers rarely optimize for the joy of programming - lwall ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From fredrik_lundh@ivab.se Tue Jul 30 09:45:11 1996 From: fredrik_lundh@ivab.se (Fredrik Lundh) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 10:45:11 +0200 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG In-Reply-To: <199607300805.SAA09238@foxtail.dstc.edu.au> (message from David Arnold on Tue, 30 Jul 1996 18:05:55 +1000) Message-ID: <9607300845.AA18021@arnold.image.ivab.se> > Finally - does everyone support the creation of this SIG? I think > that we have some valuable work to do, raising the profile of Python > in the wider community and making new facilities available within > the language. Sounds like a really good idea to me. But is "do-sig" really a good name? /F (tired of image-sig being the last SIG on the list :-) ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From jim.fulton@digicool.com Tue Jul 30 12:11:12 1996 From: jim.fulton@digicool.com (Jim Fulton) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 07:11:12 -0400 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG References: <9607300845.AA18021@arnold.image.ivab.se> Message-ID: <31FDEDD0.3AA4@digicool.com> Fredrik Lundh wrote: > > > Finally - does everyone support the creation of this SIG? I think > > that we have some valuable work to do, raising the profile of Python > > in the wider community and making new facilities available within > > the language. > > Sounds like a really good idea to me. But is "do-sig" really a good > name? > > /F (tired of image-sig being the last SIG on the list :-) Don't worry, I'm planning to propose '\277-sig', the end of all sigs. Jim -- Jim Fulton Digital Creations jim@digicool.com 540.371.6909 ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From mclay@eeel.nist.gov Tue Jul 30 09:43:46 1996 From: mclay@eeel.nist.gov (Michael McLay) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 08:43:46 GMT Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG In-Reply-To: <199607300805.SAA09238@foxtail.dstc.edu.au> References: <199607300805.SAA09238@foxtail.dstc.edu.au> Message-ID: <199607300843.IAA03184@fermi.eeel.nist.gov> David Arnold writes: > The short blurb could be > > DO-SIG: A Special Interest Group for Distributed Object > programming in Python > > And the mission/majordomo info/web page > > This SIG provides a forum for discussion of issues concerning the > use of Distributed Object technologies with Python. It is > specifically charged with developing a CORBA binding for Python > and submitting it to the OMG for standardisation. > > All aspects of distributed, object oriented programming in Python > may be discussed. Examples include > > o design and development of a CORBA binding for Python > o the use of ORBs other than CORBA with Python > o Remote Method Invocation mechanism design and implementation > o Distributed Objects and WWW integration > o general Python distributed programming issues > > Here are some important addresses for using the list > > o Content submissions addr: do-sig@python.org > o Subscriptions addr: do-sig-request@python.org > o List admin addr: do-sig-admin@python.org > o List owner addr: do-sig-owner@python.org > > (To get instructions on using the list, send a message containing > only the word 'help' in the body to the subscriptions address, > do-sig-request@python.org . You can contact the list owner if you > need individual help.) > > A (simply copied) HTML version is available at > > > > I'd welcome any feedback on the wording, content, appropriateness, etc > of either blurb - please feel free to comment. > > Finally - does everyone support the creation of this SIG? I think > that we have some valuable work to do, raising the profile of Python > in the wider community and making new facilities available within the > language. I think that the specific nature of the work and the > potential volume warrant a separate list, rather than cluttering/being > lost in the general traffic. Yes, a SIG would be a good idea. Should OLE be mentioned in the charter? It's not distributed at this time, but that's the future claims. How about Active-X? Michael ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From paul@digicool.com Tue Jul 30 15:02:00 1996 From: paul@digicool.com (Paul Everitt) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 10:02:00 -0400 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG Message-ID: <199607301403.KAA11806@python.org> Michael wrote: > Yes, a SIG would be a good idea. Should OLE be mentioned in the > charter? It's not distributed at this time, but that's the future > claims. How about Active-X? I'd vote no. The current SIG charter is quite well-defined, thus achievable. Adding on OLE because it is an object technology would dilute the DO-SIG's focus, IMHO. Moreover, the people championing the DO-SIG are a different group of people than the Python-OLE people. My $0.02 Paul Everitt Digital Creations paul@digicool.com 540.371.6909 ## Python is my favorite language ## ## http://www.python.org/ ## ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From klm@CNRI.Reston.Va.US Tue Jul 30 16:52:35 1996 From: klm@CNRI.Reston.Va.US (Ken Manheimer) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:52:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG In-Reply-To: <199607300805.SAA09238@foxtail.dstc.edu.au> Message-ID: Seems like the only question about the creation of the new sig is its name. Since i didn't see any alternatives suggested, i put out the following straw-man candidates: do-sig catchy but slightly obscure distobj-sig awkward but more obvious I actually think the obscurity of the catchy name might be a hindrance, but don't have strong feelings about it. I'd say anyone with strong feelings on the matter (including david, if you really like 'do-sig') should speak up, and they can tip the scales, we'll decide this, and comission the sig (when barry gets a moment to create the mailing list and i can put the sig dirs in place) - probly tomorrow? (Incidentally, re the issue of mentioning OLE specifically in the mission statement, though i may appreciate the politics of including such a massive segment of the objects world, it seems to me that the following line: > o the use of ORBs other than CORBA with Python implicitly allows room for that, and it sidesteps the issue that OLE currently isn't really network capable...) Ken ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From friedric@rose.rsoc.rockwell.com Tue Jul 30 17:20:19 1996 From: friedric@rose.rsoc.rockwell.com (Robin Friedrich) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:20:19 -0500 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG Message-ID: <199607301620.LAA25996@darwin.rsoc.rockwell.com> how about corba-sig? It seems as specific as the mission. Robin "I'll shutup now" Friedrich ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From jim.fulton@digicool.com Tue Jul 30 17:29:17 1996 From: jim.fulton@digicool.com (Jim Fulton) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 12:29:17 -0400 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG References: Message-ID: <31FE385D.3836@digicool.com> Ken Manheimer wrote: > > Seems like the only question about the creation of the new sig is its > name. Since i didn't see any alternatives suggested, i put out the > following straw-man candidates: > > do-sig catchy but slightly obscure > distobj-sig awkward but more obvious > > I actually think the obscurity of the catchy name might be a hindrance, > but don't have strong feelings about it. I'd say anyone with strong > feelings on the matter (including david, if you really like 'do-sig') > should speak up, and they can tip the scales, we'll decide this, and > comission the sig (when barry gets a moment to create the mailing list > and i can put the sig dirs in place) - probly tomorrow? I like do-sig much better. > > (Incidentally, re the issue of mentioning OLE specifically in the mission > statement, though i may appreciate the politics of including such a > massive segment of the objects world, it seems to me that the following > line: > > > o the use of ORBs other than CORBA with Python > > implicitly allows room for that, and it sidesteps the issue that OLE > currently isn't really network capable...) Right. Jim -- Jim Fulton Digital Creations jim@digicool.com 540.371.6909 ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From cbs@ascinc.com Tue Jul 30 17:44:09 1996 From: cbs@ascinc.com (Casper Stoel) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 12:44:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG Message-ID: <9607301644.AA28173@ascinc.com> Jim Fulton writes: > > Ken Manheimer wrote: > > > > Seems like the only question about the creation of the new sig is its > > name. Since i didn't see any alternatives suggested, i put out the > > following straw-man candidates: > > > > do-sig catchy but slightly obscure > > distobj-sig awkward but more obvious > > > > I actually think the obscurity of the catchy name might be a hindrance, > > but don't have strong feelings about it. I'd say anyone with strong > > feelings on the matter (including david, if you really like 'do-sig') > > should speak up, and they can tip the scales, we'll decide this, and > > comission the sig (when barry gets a moment to create the mailing list > > and i can put the sig dirs in place) - probly tomorrow? > > I like do-sig much better. What about: doe-sig still catchy but slightly more obvious Just a thought... Ir. Casper B. Stoel Alternative System Concepts Inc. email: cbs@ascinc.com PO Box 128, Windham, NH 03087 URL : http://www.ascinc.com tel (603) 437-2234 fax (603) 437-2722 ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From Barry A. Warsaw" Message-ID: <199607301643.MAA00474@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> Robin> how about corba-sig? It seems as specific as the mission. I agree with Robin here. Even though the door is left open for other ORBs in the mission statement, the emphasis is with CORBA. And SIGs are supposed to have a well-defined mission. My vote would be corba-sig, but I'd go with do-sig if the majority wants that. -Barry ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From jim.fulton@digicool.com Tue Jul 30 18:00:24 1996 From: jim.fulton@digicool.com (Jim Fulton) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 13:00:24 -0400 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG References: <9607301644.AA28173@ascinc.com> Message-ID: <31FE3FA8.2483@digicool.com> Casper Stoel wrote: > > Jim Fulton writes: > > > > Ken Manheimer wrote: > > > > > > Seems like the only question about the creation of the new sig is its > > > name. Since i didn't see any alternatives suggested, i put out the > > > following straw-man candidates: > > > > > > do-sig catchy but slightly obscure > > > distobj-sig awkward but more obvious > > > > > > I actually think the obscurity of the catchy name might be a hindrance, > > > but don't have strong feelings about it. I'd say anyone with strong > > > feelings on the matter (including david, if you really like 'do-sig') > > > should speak up, and they can tip the scales, we'll decide this, and > > > comission the sig (when barry gets a moment to create the mailing list > > > and i can put the sig dirs in place) - probly tomorrow? > > > > I like do-sig much better. > > What about: > > doe-sig still catchy but slightly more obvious Oh, deer. -- Jim Fulton Digital Creations jim@digicool.com 540.371.6909 ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From Roger E. Masse" References: <199607301620.LAA25996@darwin.rsoc.rockwell.com> Message-ID: <199607301745.NAA00951@knowbot.Reston.Va.US> Robin Friedrich writes: > > how about corba-sig? > It seems as specific as the mission. > Wait... can I change my vote? I like corba-sig *alot*. -roj ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From Roger E. Masse" References: <199607300805.SAA09238@foxtail.dstc.edu.au> Message-ID: <199607301743.NAA00949@knowbot.Reston.Va.US> Ken Manheimer writes: > Seems like the only question about the creation of the new sig is its > name. Since i didn't see any alternatives suggested, i put out the > following straw-man candidates: > > do-sig catchy but slightly obscure > distobj-sig awkward but more obvious > > I actually think the obscurity of the catchy name might be a hindrance, > but don't have strong feelings about it. I'd say anyone with strong > feelings on the matter (including david, if you really like 'do-sig') 'DO' has particular meaning in the world of digital libraries... that is: 'Digital Object'... In fact that's what first comes to my mind when I see do-sig. I vote for dist-obj-sig... It makes my mail folders contain less conflicts :-) -- Regards, Roger E. Masse, Systems Engineer Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100 Reston, Virginia, USA 22091 Internet: rmasse@CNRI.Reston.VA.US ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From fredrik_lundh@ivab.se Tue Jul 30 18:57:42 1996 From: fredrik_lundh@ivab.se (Fredrik Lundh) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 19:57:42 +0200 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG In-Reply-To: <199607301643.MAA00474@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> (bwarsaw@anthem.cnri.reston.va.us) Message-ID: <9607301757.AA20415@arnold.image.ivab.se> FWIW, I'll back Robin and Barry on this... (or wait, maybe orb-sig?) All the other sigs have very distinct names, and I have no problem figuring out what they're all about. But what's a "do"? Really? Over and out /F ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From paul@digicool.com Wed Jul 31 13:27:37 1996 From: paul@digicool.com (Paul Everitt) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 08:27:37 -0400 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG Message-ID: <199607311243.IAA14715@python.org> Most importantly, one of the people sponsoring the SIG (Jim, Fulton variety, office next door) agrees with having OLE included. And, since David put it in the charter, then I withdraw any objection I might have. Onward with the DO-SIG. --Paul ---------- > From: Barry A. Warsaw > To: Robin Friedrich > Cc: arnold@dstc.edu.au; klm@CNRI.Reston.Va.US; meta-sig@python.org > Subject: Re: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG > Date: Tuesday, July 30, 1996 12:43 PM > > > Robin> how about corba-sig? It seems as specific as the mission. > > I agree with Robin here. Even though the door is left open for other > ORBs in the mission statement, the emphasis is with CORBA. And SIGs > are supposed to have a well-defined mission. > > My vote would be corba-sig, but I'd go with do-sig if the majority > wants that. > > -Barry > > ================= > META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists > > send messages to: meta-sig@python.org > administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org > ================= ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From arnold@dstc.edu.au Tue Jul 30 09:05:55 1996 From: arnold@dstc.edu.au (David Arnold) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 18:05:55 +1000 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG Message-ID: <199607300805.SAA09238@foxtail.dstc.edu.au> Hi all! At the conference, it was generally agreed that there was a need for a "Distributed Object" SIG as a place to coordinate work on distributed object programming using Python. Jim Fulton and I were generously nominated to manage the group and hence this request ... ;-) Having initially contacted Ken Manheimer, I have now perused the SIG creation pages and developed a rough outline for the group's charter. The short blurb could be DO-SIG: A Special Interest Group for Distributed Object programming in Python And the mission/majordomo info/web page This SIG provides a forum for discussion of issues concerning the use of Distributed Object technologies with Python. It is specifically charged with developing a CORBA binding for Python and submitting it to the OMG for standardisation. All aspects of distributed, object oriented programming in Python may be discussed. Examples include o design and development of a CORBA binding for Python o the use of ORBs other than CORBA with Python o Remote Method Invocation mechanism design and implementation o Distributed Objects and WWW integration o general Python distributed programming issues Here are some important addresses for using the list o Content submissions addr: do-sig@python.org o Subscriptions addr: do-sig-request@python.org o List admin addr: do-sig-admin@python.org o List owner addr: do-sig-owner@python.org (To get instructions on using the list, send a message containing only the word 'help' in the body to the subscriptions address, do-sig-request@python.org . You can contact the list owner if you need individual help.) A (simply copied) HTML version is available at I'd welcome any feedback on the wording, content, appropriateness, etc of either blurb - please feel free to comment. Finally - does everyone support the creation of this SIG? I think that we have some valuable work to do, raising the profile of Python in the wider community and making new facilities available within the language. I think that the specific nature of the work and the potential volume warrant a separate list, rather than cluttering/being lost in the general traffic. Thanks, -- David Arnold ,================================================= =================' +617 3654310 (voice) CRC for Distributed Systems Technology +617 3654311 (fax) University of Queensland davida@pobox.com (email) Australia (web) C++ compilers rarely optimize for the joy of programming - lwall ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From fredrik_lundh@ivab.se Tue Jul 30 09:45:11 1996 From: fredrik_lundh@ivab.se (Fredrik Lundh) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 10:45:11 +0200 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG In-Reply-To: <199607300805.SAA09238@foxtail.dstc.edu.au> (message from David Arnold on Tue, 30 Jul 1996 18:05:55 +1000) Message-ID: <9607300845.AA18021@arnold.image.ivab.se> > Finally - does everyone support the creation of this SIG? I think > that we have some valuable work to do, raising the profile of Python > in the wider community and making new facilities available within > the language. Sounds like a really good idea to me. But is "do-sig" really a good name? /F (tired of image-sig being the last SIG on the list :-) ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From jim.fulton@digicool.com Tue Jul 30 12:11:12 1996 From: jim.fulton@digicool.com (Jim Fulton) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 07:11:12 -0400 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG References: <9607300845.AA18021@arnold.image.ivab.se> Message-ID: <31FDEDD0.3AA4@digicool.com> Fredrik Lundh wrote: > > > Finally - does everyone support the creation of this SIG? I think > > that we have some valuable work to do, raising the profile of Python > > in the wider community and making new facilities available within > > the language. > > Sounds like a really good idea to me. But is "do-sig" really a good > name? > > /F (tired of image-sig being the last SIG on the list :-) Don't worry, I'm planning to propose '\277-sig', the end of all sigs. Jim -- Jim Fulton Digital Creations jim@digicool.com 540.371.6909 ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From mclay@eeel.nist.gov Tue Jul 30 09:43:46 1996 From: mclay@eeel.nist.gov (Michael McLay) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 08:43:46 GMT Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG In-Reply-To: <199607300805.SAA09238@foxtail.dstc.edu.au> References: <199607300805.SAA09238@foxtail.dstc.edu.au> Message-ID: <199607300843.IAA03184@fermi.eeel.nist.gov> David Arnold writes: > The short blurb could be > > DO-SIG: A Special Interest Group for Distributed Object > programming in Python > > And the mission/majordomo info/web page > > This SIG provides a forum for discussion of issues concerning the > use of Distributed Object technologies with Python. It is > specifically charged with developing a CORBA binding for Python > and submitting it to the OMG for standardisation. > > All aspects of distributed, object oriented programming in Python > may be discussed. Examples include > > o design and development of a CORBA binding for Python > o the use of ORBs other than CORBA with Python > o Remote Method Invocation mechanism design and implementation > o Distributed Objects and WWW integration > o general Python distributed programming issues > > Here are some important addresses for using the list > > o Content submissions addr: do-sig@python.org > o Subscriptions addr: do-sig-request@python.org > o List admin addr: do-sig-admin@python.org > o List owner addr: do-sig-owner@python.org > > (To get instructions on using the list, send a message containing > only the word 'help' in the body to the subscriptions address, > do-sig-request@python.org . You can contact the list owner if you > need individual help.) > > A (simply copied) HTML version is available at > > > > I'd welcome any feedback on the wording, content, appropriateness, etc > of either blurb - please feel free to comment. > > Finally - does everyone support the creation of this SIG? I think > that we have some valuable work to do, raising the profile of Python > in the wider community and making new facilities available within the > language. I think that the specific nature of the work and the > potential volume warrant a separate list, rather than cluttering/being > lost in the general traffic. Yes, a SIG would be a good idea. Should OLE be mentioned in the charter? It's not distributed at this time, but that's the future claims. How about Active-X? Michael ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From paul@digicool.com Tue Jul 30 15:02:00 1996 From: paul@digicool.com (Paul Everitt) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 10:02:00 -0400 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG Message-ID: <199607301403.KAA11806@python.org> Michael wrote: > Yes, a SIG would be a good idea. Should OLE be mentioned in the > charter? It's not distributed at this time, but that's the future > claims. How about Active-X? I'd vote no. The current SIG charter is quite well-defined, thus achievable. Adding on OLE because it is an object technology would dilute the DO-SIG's focus, IMHO. Moreover, the people championing the DO-SIG are a different group of people than the Python-OLE people. My $0.02 Paul Everitt Digital Creations paul@digicool.com 540.371.6909 ## Python is my favorite language ## ## http://www.python.org/ ## ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From klm@CNRI.Reston.Va.US Tue Jul 30 16:52:35 1996 From: klm@CNRI.Reston.Va.US (Ken Manheimer) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:52:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG In-Reply-To: <199607300805.SAA09238@foxtail.dstc.edu.au> Message-ID: Seems like the only question about the creation of the new sig is its name. Since i didn't see any alternatives suggested, i put out the following straw-man candidates: do-sig catchy but slightly obscure distobj-sig awkward but more obvious I actually think the obscurity of the catchy name might be a hindrance, but don't have strong feelings about it. I'd say anyone with strong feelings on the matter (including david, if you really like 'do-sig') should speak up, and they can tip the scales, we'll decide this, and comission the sig (when barry gets a moment to create the mailing list and i can put the sig dirs in place) - probly tomorrow? (Incidentally, re the issue of mentioning OLE specifically in the mission statement, though i may appreciate the politics of including such a massive segment of the objects world, it seems to me that the following line: > o the use of ORBs other than CORBA with Python implicitly allows room for that, and it sidesteps the issue that OLE currently isn't really network capable...) Ken ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From friedric@rose.rsoc.rockwell.com Tue Jul 30 17:20:19 1996 From: friedric@rose.rsoc.rockwell.com (Robin Friedrich) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 11:20:19 -0500 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG Message-ID: <199607301620.LAA25996@darwin.rsoc.rockwell.com> how about corba-sig? It seems as specific as the mission. Robin "I'll shutup now" Friedrich ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From jim.fulton@digicool.com Tue Jul 30 17:29:17 1996 From: jim.fulton@digicool.com (Jim Fulton) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 12:29:17 -0400 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG References: Message-ID: <31FE385D.3836@digicool.com> Ken Manheimer wrote: > > Seems like the only question about the creation of the new sig is its > name. Since i didn't see any alternatives suggested, i put out the > following straw-man candidates: > > do-sig catchy but slightly obscure > distobj-sig awkward but more obvious > > I actually think the obscurity of the catchy name might be a hindrance, > but don't have strong feelings about it. I'd say anyone with strong > feelings on the matter (including david, if you really like 'do-sig') > should speak up, and they can tip the scales, we'll decide this, and > comission the sig (when barry gets a moment to create the mailing list > and i can put the sig dirs in place) - probly tomorrow? I like do-sig much better. > > (Incidentally, re the issue of mentioning OLE specifically in the mission > statement, though i may appreciate the politics of including such a > massive segment of the objects world, it seems to me that the following > line: > > > o the use of ORBs other than CORBA with Python > > implicitly allows room for that, and it sidesteps the issue that OLE > currently isn't really network capable...) Right. Jim -- Jim Fulton Digital Creations jim@digicool.com 540.371.6909 ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From cbs@ascinc.com Tue Jul 30 17:44:09 1996 From: cbs@ascinc.com (Casper Stoel) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 12:44:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG Message-ID: <9607301644.AA28173@ascinc.com> Jim Fulton writes: > > Ken Manheimer wrote: > > > > Seems like the only question about the creation of the new sig is its > > name. Since i didn't see any alternatives suggested, i put out the > > following straw-man candidates: > > > > do-sig catchy but slightly obscure > > distobj-sig awkward but more obvious > > > > I actually think the obscurity of the catchy name might be a hindrance, > > but don't have strong feelings about it. I'd say anyone with strong > > feelings on the matter (including david, if you really like 'do-sig') > > should speak up, and they can tip the scales, we'll decide this, and > > comission the sig (when barry gets a moment to create the mailing list > > and i can put the sig dirs in place) - probly tomorrow? > > I like do-sig much better. What about: doe-sig still catchy but slightly more obvious Just a thought... Ir. Casper B. Stoel Alternative System Concepts Inc. email: cbs@ascinc.com PO Box 128, Windham, NH 03087 URL : http://www.ascinc.com tel (603) 437-2234 fax (603) 437-2722 ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From Barry A. Warsaw" Message-ID: <199607301643.MAA00474@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> Robin> how about corba-sig? It seems as specific as the mission. I agree with Robin here. Even though the door is left open for other ORBs in the mission statement, the emphasis is with CORBA. And SIGs are supposed to have a well-defined mission. My vote would be corba-sig, but I'd go with do-sig if the majority wants that. -Barry ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From jim.fulton@digicool.com Tue Jul 30 18:00:24 1996 From: jim.fulton@digicool.com (Jim Fulton) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 13:00:24 -0400 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG References: <9607301644.AA28173@ascinc.com> Message-ID: <31FE3FA8.2483@digicool.com> Casper Stoel wrote: > > Jim Fulton writes: > > > > Ken Manheimer wrote: > > > > > > Seems like the only question about the creation of the new sig is its > > > name. Since i didn't see any alternatives suggested, i put out the > > > following straw-man candidates: > > > > > > do-sig catchy but slightly obscure > > > distobj-sig awkward but more obvious > > > > > > I actually think the obscurity of the catchy name might be a hindrance, > > > but don't have strong feelings about it. I'd say anyone with strong > > > feelings on the matter (including david, if you really like 'do-sig') > > > should speak up, and they can tip the scales, we'll decide this, and > > > comission the sig (when barry gets a moment to create the mailing list > > > and i can put the sig dirs in place) - probly tomorrow? > > > > I like do-sig much better. > > What about: > > doe-sig still catchy but slightly more obvious Oh, deer. -- Jim Fulton Digital Creations jim@digicool.com 540.371.6909 ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From Roger E. Masse" References: <199607301620.LAA25996@darwin.rsoc.rockwell.com> Message-ID: <199607301745.NAA00951@knowbot.Reston.Va.US> Robin Friedrich writes: > > how about corba-sig? > It seems as specific as the mission. > Wait... can I change my vote? I like corba-sig *alot*. -roj ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From Roger E. Masse" References: <199607300805.SAA09238@foxtail.dstc.edu.au> Message-ID: <199607301743.NAA00949@knowbot.Reston.Va.US> Ken Manheimer writes: > Seems like the only question about the creation of the new sig is its > name. Since i didn't see any alternatives suggested, i put out the > following straw-man candidates: > > do-sig catchy but slightly obscure > distobj-sig awkward but more obvious > > I actually think the obscurity of the catchy name might be a hindrance, > but don't have strong feelings about it. I'd say anyone with strong > feelings on the matter (including david, if you really like 'do-sig') 'DO' has particular meaning in the world of digital libraries... that is: 'Digital Object'... In fact that's what first comes to my mind when I see do-sig. I vote for dist-obj-sig... It makes my mail folders contain less conflicts :-) -- Regards, Roger E. Masse, Systems Engineer Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100 Reston, Virginia, USA 22091 Internet: rmasse@CNRI.Reston.VA.US ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From fredrik_lundh@ivab.se Tue Jul 30 18:57:42 1996 From: fredrik_lundh@ivab.se (Fredrik Lundh) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 19:57:42 +0200 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG In-Reply-To: <199607301643.MAA00474@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> (bwarsaw@anthem.cnri.reston.va.us) Message-ID: <9607301757.AA20415@arnold.image.ivab.se> FWIW, I'll back Robin and Barry on this... (or wait, maybe orb-sig?) All the other sigs have very distinct names, and I have no problem figuring out what they're all about. But what's a "do"? Really? Over and out /F ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From paul@digicool.com Wed Jul 31 13:27:37 1996 From: paul@digicool.com (Paul Everitt) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 08:27:37 -0400 Subject: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG Message-ID: <199607311243.IAA14715@python.org> Most importantly, one of the people sponsoring the SIG (Jim, Fulton variety, office next door) agrees with having OLE included. And, since David put it in the charter, then I withdraw any objection I might have. Onward with the DO-SIG. --Paul ---------- > From: Barry A. Warsaw > To: Robin Friedrich > Cc: arnold@dstc.edu.au; klm@CNRI.Reston.Va.US; meta-sig@python.org > Subject: Re: [PYTHON META-SIG] Proposal for new SIG > Date: Tuesday, July 30, 1996 12:43 PM > > > Robin> how about corba-sig? It seems as specific as the mission. > > I agree with Robin here. Even though the door is left open for other > ORBs in the mission statement, the emphasis is with CORBA. And SIGs > are supposed to have a well-defined mission. > > My vote would be corba-sig, but I'd go with do-sig if the majority > wants that. > > -Barry > > ================= > META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists > > send messages to: meta-sig@python.org > administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org > ================= ================= META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists send messages to: meta-sig@python.org administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org ================= From sverker.is@home.se Fri Jul 12 06:33:55 1996 From: sverker.is@home.se (Sverker Nilsson) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 07:33:55 +0200 Subject: [Types-sig] Re: [meta-sig] SIG charters References: <15657.62121.520364.556758@anthem.wooz.org> <200207092050.g69KoxW04101@odiug.zope.com> <31E5E26A.BE7C5DC@home.se> Message-ID: <31E5E3C3.569EBAFA@home.se> Sverker Nilsson wrote: > > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > types-sig > > +1 > > -1. I think there may come interesting discussions on this list, > when the time is due and things come up. Why dismiss it? It is > a good place to have. > > Sverker Nilsson