From q910h5wmn@traffi1ctower.com Fri Dec 5 05:33:53 1997 From: q910h5wmn@traffi1ctower.com (q910h5wmn@traffi1ctower.com) Date: 05 Dec 97 5:33:53 PM Subject: [META-SIG] Lasers/Optics/Optical Tables - Save! Message-ID: <0eu0QP3P92r8Q> MWK INDUSTRIES SALE! JUST A QUICK LETTER TO SHOW YOU SOME LASERS- OPTICS AND OPTICAL TABLES SURPLUS THAT WE JUST RECEIVED. ITEM TRIMMU12 14 WATT ARGON LASER MADE FOR HEART SURGERY, TRIMEDYNE MODEL 900 TEMOO, POLORIZED,220VAC INPUT , WATER COOLED , FIBER LAUNCH, ALL ON ROLLAROUND CART EXCELENT FOR LAB USE, THE POWER WAS MEASURED AT 13 TO 14 WATTS. PRICE $9500 12 MONTH WARRANTEE. ITEM: COHERENT ARTICULATING ARM FROM A MODEL 451 CO2 MEDICAL LASER. ECCELLENT COND. $200 ITEM CO220A: CO2 LASER MADE BY PFIZER ,1990, FOR SURGERY, TATTOO REMOVAL ECT. 20 WATT OUTPUT , TESTED AND IN EXC. COND. 110 VAC INPUT, COST $40,000 NEW OUR PRICE 4,900. MODEL 20-C ITEM:PDA-1U1 SPECTRA PHYSICS QUANTRA RAY PULSED DYE LASER , GOOD FOR SPARE PARTS MODEL PDA-1 $500 ITEM NEWU1 NEWPORT OPTICAL TABLE 16" BY 36" 4" THICK, 1 " HOLE SPACING, COMES WITH A RUBBER ISOLATED TABLE STAND, NOT AIR SUPPORTED, $750 ITEM: HEPSN1 HELIUM NEON POWER SUPPLY KIT OPERATES UP TO A 15 mW LASER, INCLUDES ALL COMPONENTS AND PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS STUFF AND SOLDER THE CIRCUIT BOARD . 4" BY 3" BY 3", PRICE $75 ITEM HENEU12 1 TO 1.5 MW HE-NE LASER 632.8 nM INCLUDES 12VDC INPUT POWER SUPPLY ALL IN A PLASTIC HOUSING 6.25 IN. BY 1.375IN BY 2.25 IN. TEMOO,RANDOM POL. ,1.7 MR DIVERGENCE. 12 MONTH WARRANTEE , PRICE $45 ITEM MELU12 1 TO 2 mW HE-NE LASER 632.8 NM , PULLS FROM MEDICAL EQUIPMENT .EACH UNIT INCLUDES HE-NE HEAD AND POWER SUPPLY[110VAC INPUT]. ALL YOU NEED TO PROVIDE IS A POWER CORD AND A FUSE TO MAKE THE UNIT OPERATIONAL. THE BEAM IS TEM00, POLORIZED WE WILL COVER EACH UNIT WITH A 12 MONTH UNLIMITED HOUR WARRANTEE, EXCELLENT FOR FOR LAB OR HOME USE. NEW THESE COST APPROX. $350 OUR PRICE $85. DIMENSIONS 9.75 BY 1.25 INCHES, P.S. 4.25 BY 3.25BY 1.25 INCHES. ITEM RAMCNS1: RAMAN CELL OPTICS 308 nm AR/AR 4600 A 0=0 DEGREES 1000 MM FL. 2" DIA. NEW. ORIGINAL PRICE $520 OUR PRICE $175 ITEM TFPOLNS1: POLARIZERS , THIN FILM FOR 532 nm , NEW, ORIGINAL COST $590 EACH OUR PRICE $200 EACH 10 MM DIA. ITEM CO2OCNS1: CO2 HIGH REFECTOR AND OUTPUT COUPLER 10.5 MM DIA, OC =79%R NEW. $200 A SET. ITEM 25MNS1: DIELECTRIC BROADBAND MIRRORS 450 TO 700NM , NEW WITH PLASTIC PROTECTIVE COATINGS , 2 SIZES 25 MM SQ. AND 50 MM SQ. RECOMENDED FOR HIGHER POWER LASERS. 25MM SIZE ITEM 25MNS1 $20 50MM SIZE ITEM 50MNS1 $25 ITEM # BSDNS1: 50/50 DIELECTRIC COATED PLATE BEAM SPLITTER 630 TO 660 NM COMES IN A TRIANGLE SHAPE EACH SIDE APPROX. 1" PRICE $20 ITEM # 45NS1 45 DEGREE RED REFLECTOR , PASSES 488 TO 532NM , CAN BE USED TO COMBINE RED AND GREEN/BLUE LASERS TO CREATE A WHITE LIGHT LASER. 1" SQ. PRICE $15 ITEM# PCINS1 PLANO/CONVEX LENS COATED FOR YAG 1064NM , AR COATED, 10MM DIA. NEW, ORIG. COST $250 OUR PRICE $100 ITEM# INFILTER : INTERFERENCE FILTERS USED FOR PASSING A PARTICULAR SPECTRAL LINE , 11.8 MM DIA. CAREFULLY REMOVED FROM MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AND WRAPPED IN LENSE PAPER. THE FOLLOWING WAVE LENGTHS ARE AVAILABLE. 523.5, 547.4 , 572.1, 512.9, 550.6, 488, 505.7 nm price $20 each. FOR A COMPLETE LINE OF NEW AND USED LASERS - OPTICS -ELECTRO OPTICS- LASER SHOWS ORDER A COMPLETE CATALOG AT MWKINDUSTRIES.COM TO: ORDER GO TO OUR WEB SITE MWKINDUSTRIES.COM {SECURE ORDERING SITE} QUESTIONS OR REMOVAL FROM MAILING LIST EMAIL: MWK@WORLDNET.ATT.NET MWK INDUSTRIES 1269 POMONA RD CORONA CA 91720 PHONE 909-278-0563 FAX 909-278-4887 _______________ 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 papresco@technologist.com Tue Dec 16 16:14:57 1997 From: papresco@technologist.com (Paul Prescod) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:14:57 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Re: SGML-SIG? was: Re: xml lib References: <881527587.16932@dejanews.com> <34922A03.9C6AB29F@technologist.com> <66toti$2l8$1@nuacht.iol.ie> <199712151715.MAA21990@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> Message-ID: <3496A901.98593ACC@technologist.com> Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Use the doc-sig; SGML has been discussed there many times. I would rather have a special SIG with its own mandate and Time To Live. I don't think the doc-sig people really care about the intricacies of our SGML APIs and our design of SGML-oriented software. > BTW the recent fate of the plot-sig and the thread-sig (both of which > took off and then quickly faded away completely) makes me believe that > we should stop creating SIGs. Why not just evaporate dead ones? I explicitly suggested a TTL on the SGML SIG because I knew that we were concerned about moribund SIGs. I would like to think that as we move through various phases of technology we can create and destroy SIGs as appropriate. A C++ Sig may be meaningless 10 years from now and it could be dissolved. A distributed smell processing SIG might be desperately needed and we could create it. Think of them as Python equivalent of IETF working groups. Paul Prescod _______________ 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 papresco@technologist.com Tue Dec 16 16:30:13 1997 From: papresco@technologist.com (Paul Prescod) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:30:13 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] SGML SIG Proposal Message-ID: <3496AC95.86404567@technologist.com> I propose to create an SGML sig with an explicit 6 month time to live and an option for renewal at that point. SGML-SIG: A Special Interest Group on APIs and software for SGML/XML processing ---- Blurb: This SIG exists in order to discuss classes, interfaces and software for the processing of SGML documents (including the XML subset). For more information on the SIG's mandate, see http://***not yet set up see below*** About this list: Additions and deletions are all automated via Majordomo. For details, send the word `help' in the body of a mail message to the Administrivia address given below. The subscription policy is `open', meaning you can add or delete yourself at any time, but you cannot add or delete anyone else without approval. This list is unmoderated and unrestricted. This means that anybody can post messages to the list. Messages are archived and available for download, as are perhaps other useful files. For details, send the word `index' in the body of a message to the Administrivia address. Post messages to the everyone on the list by using the List address. If you absolutely must to contact a human being, use the Owner address. ---- Mandate: This list exists in order to discuss classes, interfaces and software for the processing of SGML documents (including the XML subset). Concrete goals of the first mandate should include: * Python version of the World Wide Web Consortium "Document Object Model" API (this should be a straightforward translation of IDL to Python) * Development of Python-specific event based and tree APIs for processing of SGML documents. (perhaps inspired by similar efforts in the Java or C++ worlds and the existing Python SGML processing packages) * Development of a validating XML parser that would serve to make XML competitive in XML processing. * Development of a filter for the output of NSGMLS that generates the events defined in our API. Longer range goals might include: * Embedding of Python into James Clark's C++ SP library. * Wrapping of C++ SP and Grove API with our Python-specific APIs. * Development of higher level tools for SGML processing (e.g. a DSSSL-like tool, an "XML-Writer" library, etc.) Paul Prescod _______________ 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 Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl Tue Dec 16 16:45:15 1997 From: Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 17:45:15 +0100 Subject: [META-SIG] SGML SIG Proposal In-Reply-To: Message by Paul Prescod , Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:30:13 -0500 , <3496AC95.86404567@technologist.com> Message-ID: I would be very much in favor of this. We're pretty busy with XML currently, and we're trying to decide (among other things) whether we should build a python-interface to one of the C XML parsers or do a fully python based one. An SGML/XML SIG would definitely have my full attention (inasfar as the attention isn't already taken by any of the other things taking my full attention:-). -- Jack Jansen | ++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++ Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl | ++++ if you agree copy these lines to your sig ++++ http://www.cwi.nl/~jack | see http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm _______________ 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 guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US Tue Dec 16 19:02:47 1997 From: guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US (Guido van Rossum) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:02:47 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs Message-ID: <199712161902.OAA01055@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> I went through the various SIG archives, mostly at Findmail, and the following sigs are clearly in coma (and have been for a long time). I think that comatose SIGs don't serve any purpose, and that these SIG mailing lists should be terminated. Their archives should be saved, of course. Here are the numbers of messages since August: c++-sig (2 in Aug, 1 in Oct, 7 in Nov -- of which 2 spams and one reply to a spam) locator-sig (0 in Aug-Oct, 1 in Nov, 6 in Dec) objc-sig (0 in Aug, 8 in Sep, 4 in Oct, 2 in Dec) pattern-sig (5 in Aug, 4 in Oct) plot-sig (38 in Sep, 12 in Oct, 10 in Nov, 2 in Dec) progenv-sig (2 in Aug, 1 in Nov, 1 in Dec) thread-sig (2 in Aug, 19 in Sep, 9 in Nov, 2 in Dec) web-sig (1 in Aug, 0 since) With these traffic levels, you can't maintain that there is an interest that warrants a separate SIG -- people interested in these subjects are better off using the main list, where they are more likely to reach other individuals with the same interests. One could argue that there's still hope for the plot-sig and thread-sig. Still, the trend is unmistakable -- they can be given an extension of three months to get their act together. I also really like Paul Prescod's idea for the proposed SGML SIG: a fixed expiration time of 6 month, after which it is killed automatically unless there's a proven interest to continue. This should be done for all SIGs, including the currently successful ones. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________ 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 amk@magnet.com Tue Dec 16 19:29:44 1997 From: amk@magnet.com (Andrew Kuchling) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:29:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs In-Reply-To: <199712161902.OAA01055@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> (message from Guido van Rossum on Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:02:47 -0500) Message-ID: <199712161929.OAA22484@lemur.magnet.com> Guido van Rossum wrote: >I went through the various SIG archives, mostly at Findmail, and the >following sigs are clearly in coma (and have been for a long time). I I can't disagree with any of those listed. Web-sig doesn't really have a purpose these days; cgi.py is written, doesn't need extending at the moment, and other tools like Principia and Magnet's internal stuff are developed elsewhere. The locator SIG may have a spurt of life for a bit thanks to Aaron's new FAQ wizard setup, but it could equally well be discussed on psa-members or the main list. The pattern SIG hasn't excited much interest; the plot-SIG argued about design issues for a while and then died away. >One could argue that there's still hope for the plot-sig and >thread-sig. Still, the trend is unmistakable -- they can be given an >extension of three months to get their act together. As I said on a recent Locator-SIG message, the Python community has a nasty habit of starting a design discussion, aiming for the sky (an optimal solution that is everything to all people); discussion runs for a while and then dies without an implementation or even any code. The GUI-SIG has followed that course repeatedly, as has the Locator-SIG; Plot-SIG appears to have succumbed to that same illness now. I subscribe to the worse-is-better philosophy of releasing some lame product quickly, and then subsequently improving it until it's no longer lame. Perhaps a SIG shouldn't be started until there's some existing body of code for the SIG to work with; that imposes the minimum requirement that someone had to care enough to write code in the first place... Andrew Kuchling amk@magnet.com http://starship.skyport.net/crew/amk/ _______________ 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 Dec 16 19:54:59 1997 From: paul@digicool.com (Paul Everitt) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:54:59 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs References: <199712161929.OAA22484@lemur.magnet.com> Message-ID: <3496DC93.7A418EB8@digicool.com> I agree -- pull teh plug on the terminal ones listed, impose a "die-on" date, encourage discussions to start on the main list and follow the course outlined for the SGML SIG. --Paul -- 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 butler@cs.byu.edu Tue Dec 16 21:07:27 1997 From: butler@cs.byu.edu (Kevin J. Butler) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 16:07:27 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs In-Reply-To: <199712161929.OAA22484@lemur.magnet.com> Message-ID: <199712162107.QAA07374@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Andrew Kuchling wrote: > I subscribe to the worse-is-better philosophy of releasing > some lame product quickly, and then subsequently improving it until Absolutely--note how successful Microsoft has been with this approach-- and they don't generally even reach the "not lame" phase. ;-) > it's no longer lame. Perhaps a SIG shouldn't be started until there's > some existing body of code for the SIG to work with; that imposes the > minimum requirement that someone had to care enough to write code in > the first place... I like this idea, except: -It may unreasonably hinder group work -If group work does take place, it will be coordinated via c.l.p, which Guido doesn't like much (or is that disapproval only if there is already a relevant SIG?) kb -- Kevin Butler butler@byu.edu 8-) A pun a day keeps the doctor away...and everyone else, too. http://students.cs.byu.edu/~butler/homepage.html (updated 10/18/96) _______________ 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 guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US Tue Dec 16 21:21:06 1997 From: guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US (Guido van Rossum) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 16:21:06 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Dec 1997 16:07:27 EST." <199712162107.QAA07374@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> References: <199712162107.QAA07374@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> Message-ID: <199712162121.QAA01631@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> > -If group work does take place, it will be coordinated via c.l.p, > which Guido doesn't like much (or is that disapproval only if > there is already a relevant SIG?) Where did you get the impression that I don't like group work coordination in c.l.p? The last time I urged a discussion to move it was the GUI discussion. Now that's a bit of a special case, because I happen to believe that nothing will come out of it (that particular discussion has been had so many times before that I've grown rather skeptical). Still, *if* there's an appropriate SIG, it makes sense to move discussions there from the main list; but if there's no appropriate SIG, any discussion is welcome on c.l.p as long as it's relevant to Python (and doesn't degenerate in flaming). --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________ 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 gstein@exchange.microsoft.com Wed Dec 17 03:54:10 1997 From: gstein@exchange.microsoft.com (Greg Stein (Exchange)) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 19:54:10 -0800 Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs Message-ID: <69D8143E230DD111B1D40000F8485840BCB72E@ED> Having a time limit is quite fine with me. Yes, I am one of the advocates of the close-to-dead thread-sig, but I also agree with the assessment - kill the ones that go nowhere. It is a bit frustrating to throw out a proposal of a few things for the SIG to do and get zero replies. Quite sad, in fact. In any case, once 1.5 is out the door and I actually manage to find some time to deal with it, I want to release a new set of threading patches. Hopefully, we can start up some discussions around that. Regardless, I'd appreciate an extension :-). Let's say it's dead on May 1 unless significant progress is occurring. That gives us four months to do something. Thx -g -----Original Message----- From: Guido van Rossum [SMTP:guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 1997 11:03 AM To: meta-sig@python.org Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs I went through the various SIG archives, mostly at Findmail, and the following sigs are clearly in coma (and have been for a long time). I think that comatose SIGs don't serve any purpose, and that these SIG mailing lists should be terminated. Their archives should be saved, of course. Here are the numbers of messages since August: c++-sig (2 in Aug, 1 in Oct, 7 in Nov -- of which 2 spams and one reply to a spam) locator-sig (0 in Aug-Oct, 1 in Nov, 6 in Dec) objc-sig (0 in Aug, 8 in Sep, 4 in Oct, 2 in Dec) pattern-sig (5 in Aug, 4 in Oct) plot-sig (38 in Sep, 12 in Oct, 10 in Nov, 2 in Dec) progenv-sig (2 in Aug, 1 in Nov, 1 in Dec) thread-sig (2 in Aug, 19 in Sep, 9 in Nov, 2 in Dec) web-sig (1 in Aug, 0 since) With these traffic levels, you can't maintain that there is an interest that warrants a separate SIG -- people interested in these subjects are better off using the main list, where they are more likely to reach other individuals with the same interests. One could argue that there's still hope for the plot-sig and thread-sig. Still, the trend is unmistakable -- they can be given an extension of three months to get their act together. I also really like Paul Prescod's idea for the proposed SGML SIG: a fixed expiration time of 6 month, after which it is killed automatically unless there's a proven interest to continue. This should be done for all SIGs, including the currently successful ones. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________ 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 papresco@technologist.com Wed Dec 17 07:14:50 1997 From: papresco@technologist.com (Paul Prescod) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 02:14:50 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs References: <69D8143E230DD111B1D40000F8485840BCB72E@ED> Message-ID: <34977BEA.1E260219@technologist.com> Greg Stein (Exchange) wrote: > > > Regardless, I'd appreciate an extension :-). Let's say it's dead on May > 1 unless significant progress is occurring. That gives us four months to > do something. It may make sense to grant this exception. But it may make more sense to have a more general process for re-invigorating a dead sig when work starts up again. Bringing a sig "back to life" is probably as easy as moving its reference from a page of "dead sigs" to a page of "live sigs" and and adding the mail aliases back to python.org. The archive can continue and the participant list could be the same. Paul Prescod _______________ 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 skip@calendar.com (Skip Montanaro) Wed Dec 17 14:18:54 1997 From: skip@calendar.com (Skip Montanaro) (Skip Montanaro) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:18:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [META-SIG] Re: SGML-SIG? was: Re: xml lib In-Reply-To: <3496A901.98593ACC@technologist.com> References: <881527587.16932@dejanews.com> <34922A03.9C6AB29F@technologist.com> <66toti$2l8$1@nuacht.iol.ie> <199712151715.MAA21990@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> <3496A901.98593ACC@technologist.com> Message-ID: <199712171418.JAA14082@dolphin.automatrix.com> Paul> Guido van Rossum wrote: >> Use the doc-sig; SGML has been discussed there many times. Paul> I would rather have a special SIG with its own mandate and Time To Paul> Live. >> BTW the recent fate of the plot-sig and the thread-sig (both of which >> took off and then quickly faded away completely) makes me believe that >> we should stop creating SIGs. Paul> Why not just evaporate dead ones? I think the model that is used in Usenet (or at least used to be, when Usenet wasn't so swamped with spam) was a good one. When a newsgroup got overrun with a topic more specialized than the group's more general focus, a new newsgroup was created. The same should work here. Carry discussions on the main list until they demonstrate they will sustain a fair amount of traffic, then create a sig. You should perhaps also have a vote. It doesn't have to be as formalized a process as that used in Usenet, but it should give some idea of what sort of long-term interest there will be in the subject matter. Every time you create a sig you migrate the discussion out of comp.lang.python to a mailing list with a much smaller audience. People reading comp.lang.python can easily read and respond to stuff they see in the newsgroup, but will have to subscribe to a new mailing list (admittedly, not hard) and possibly manage an extra incoming mail thread (more challenging if they get a lot of mail). You also have startup overhead (deciding on a charter, etc) and the problem of newcomers to Python discovering that the sig even exists. One or more of these problems will deter a lot of potential contributors from following the topic from comp.lang.python into the newly created sig. So, I agree with Guido. If you want the SGML discussion to move out of comp.lang.python/python-list@cwi.nl, move it to the doc-sig. Most of the people who would be interested in SGML are probably already subscribed to it... (People curious about what sigs already exist should check out http://www.python.org/sigs/.) Skip Montanaro | Musi-Cal: http://concerts.calendar.com/ skip@calendar.com | Python Support: http://www.pythonpros.com/ (518)372-5583 | XEmacs: http://www.automatrix.com/~skip/xemacs/tip.html _______________ 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 papresco@technologist.com Wed Dec 17 15:37:15 1997 From: papresco@technologist.com (Paul Prescod) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 10:37:15 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Re: SGML-SIG? was: Re: xml lib References: <881527587.16932@dejanews.com> <34922A03.9C6AB29F@technologist.com> <66toti$2l8$1@nuacht.iol.ie> <199712151715.MAA21990@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> <3496A901.98593ACC@technologist.com> <199712171418.JAA14082@dolphin.automatrix.com> Message-ID: <3497F1AB.782B27C8@technologist.com> Skip Montanaro wrote: > > Every time you create a sig you migrate the discussion out of > comp.lang.python to a mailing list with a much smaller audience. People > reading comp.lang.python can easily read and respond to stuff they see in > the newsgroup, but will have to subscribe to a new mailing list (admittedly, > not hard) and possibly manage an extra incoming mail thread (more > challenging if they get a lot of mail). True, but this works both ways. SIG traffic often gets more high priority attention because it comes in actively through mail rather than sitting passively on a news sserver. > You also have startup overhead > (deciding on a charter, etc) and the problem of newcomers to Python > discovering that the sig even exists. One or more of these problems will > deter a lot of potential contributors from following the topic from > comp.lang.python into the newly created sig. Again, this works both ways. Until we have a sig, we don't have an "official" mandate. I guess we can make up and discuss a mandate and call ourselves an "loosely organized discussion group", but that sounds like just another name for "sig". > So, I agree with Guido. If you want the SGML discussion to move out of > comp.lang.python/python-list@cwi.nl, move it to the doc-sig. Most of the > people who would be interested in SGML are probably already subscribed to > it... I don't mind discussing SGML in the main newsgroup, but I think that doc-sig is definately the wrong place for it. Doc-sig has a mandate after all and SGML is only distantly related to that mandate. Many people interested in SGML are not interested in Python documentation and many people interested in Python documentation have no interest in SGML (eg. Guido :):) ) You might as well have Grail discussions there based on the argument that Grail can be used to deliver the Python documentation. I'll wait for a few more responses before deciding whether to start an "loosely organized discussion group" within the newsgroup or push for a SIG. I'd love more feedback either way. Paul Prescod _______________ 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@python.org Wed Dec 17 17:21:50 1997 From: klm@python.org (Ken Manheimer) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 12:21:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs In-Reply-To: <34977BEA.1E260219@technologist.com> Message-ID: The defunct-sigs issue has been around for a while, and i've been slow about taking action on it. I've finally taken a few steps, from some good ideas suggested here (and advocated by guido for a while). Here's what i've done. 1 I've instituted a wrap-up date for sigs, described it on the SIGs home page - http://www.python.org/sigs , and created a column for it in the SIGs table on that page. 2 I've assigned wrap-up dates of *today* for several of the SIGs that guido identified as inactive (according to very low SIG maillist traffic) 3 I retired the inactive SIG entries to a new inactive-sigs page - http://www.python.org/sigs/inactives.html . (I left the thread-sig with a wrap-up date of May 98, as requested by greg.) Despite suggestions about making the criteria for creating a SIG more stringent - eg, have some code to show - i'm inclined to think the current procedure is fine. I can appreciate the incentive for requiring some code - ie, evidence of some real effort, not just enthusiasm - but also think there are sigs worth having that do not necessarily have any clear tangible product to justify their existence. And i think SIG retirement should account for the potential for clutter inherent in the current, somewhat loose procedure. I think the looseness is worthwhile, provided it isn't a burden. (I'm hoping in the next few weeks to play seriously with mailman, potentially relieving the bulk of the burden in creating SIGs: the majordomo reconfiguration that barry has to do, and the SIG archive infrastructure setup that i do, to create a SIG.) Any suggestions or objections to the changes are welcome... Ken Manheimer klm@python.org 703 620-8990 x268 (orporation for National Research |nitiatives # Thanks for joining the PSA! # # http://www.python.org/psa/ # _______________ 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 phil@geog.ubc.ca Wed Dec 17 17:47:11 1997 From: phil@geog.ubc.ca (Phil Austin) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:47:11 -0800 Subject: [C++-SIG] RE: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs In-Reply-To: <199712171602.QAA01971@twix.lanl.gov> References: <199712161902.OAA01055@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> <199712171602.QAA01971@twix.lanl.gov> Message-ID: <199712171747.JAA03008@curlew.geog.ubc.ca> >>>>> "GF" == Geoffrey M Furnish writes: GF> If however, the PSA is willing to host discussion about GF> binding Python to C++, then let's let this be the last time GF> this issue has to be redecided. Here's two pieces of information that have a direct bearing on the (future) impact of the Python/C++ Sig: 1) As of last night, an expression template array library (http://monet.uwaterloo.ca/blitz) that pushes non-EDG-based C++ compilers beyond their limits works with a GNU compiler (http://www.cygnus.com/egcs). 2) Mumit Khan has succeeded in porting egcs-1.0 to windows95/NT using both the cygwin and mingwin dlls. (http://www.xraylith.wisc.edu/~khan). This means: a) that the number of people able to compile and experiment with a C++-extended python is about to increase by several orders of magnitude. b) that the numerical performance increase made possible by expression templates should focus attention on standard-conformance, STL techniques, dead-code removal, incremental compilation, etc. The better egcs gets in these areas, the more compelling the advantages of the LLNL-modified python becomes. So the no-compromises approach of GF and PDB is about to pay off, and it would be short-sighted to shut down the C++ sig 2 weeks after the approval of the draft standard and the release of a near-standard conforming free compiler. Regards, Phil _______________ 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@python.org Wed Dec 17 19:12:21 1997 From: klm@python.org (Ken Manheimer) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 14:12:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [C++-SIG] RE: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs In-Reply-To: <199712171747.JAA03008@curlew.geog.ubc.ca> Message-ID: Note that i reinstated the entries for the SIGs that were proposed to be retired - i'm sorry, i was much too hasty in my action. ("Bailiff, whap his ...") What i *propose* is that sig managers, who should all be on this list, all suggest a wrap-up date for their sigs, and others can comment on those dates if they feel a burning need. (Understand that the wrap-up date should not be too far in the future, but may just be a time to revisit the issue of the SIG's retirment, to be extended if it's clear that the SIG is active.) If you have a SIG that really is inactive, consider immediate retirement as a good, and revocable, option. I've put back all the entries, and did not mean to circumvent any objections - i did not see some of them that are circulating... Ken Manheimer klm@python.org 703 620-8990 x268 (orporation for National Research |nitiatives # Thanks for joining the PSA! # # http://www.python.org/psa/ # _______________ 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 guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US Wed Dec 17 23:46:34 1997 From: guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US (Guido van Rossum) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:46:34 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs Message-ID: <199712172346.SAA05637@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> This message from Geoff Furnish somehow didn't get distributed to the meta-sig, even though Geoff cc'ed it (perhaps his syntax confused some mailer). Since I will be responding shortly to this in the meta-sig, I'll forward his message here. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ------- Forwarded Message Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 16:02:30 +0000 From: "Geoffrey M. Furnish" To: Guido van Rossum cc: meta-sig@python.org, Python/C++ SIG , dubois1@llnl .gov Subject: RE: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs As the C++ Sig chair, I would like to say that I strongly disagree with this characterization. Low traffic on a mailing list does not directly imply lack of activity or interest. As it happens, Paul Dubois and I spent about an hour on the phone yesterday morning (before this flame bait arrived in my inbox) discussing our ongoing work on the C++ interface that we are constructing. Both of us are overseeing significant efforts at integrating Python into large scientific C++ frameworks at our respective laboratories (LLNL and LANL). There is absolutely no question whatsoever that large numbers of people are and will continue to be affected by what we are doing to integrate Python and C++. These are primarily "internal" (ie, laboratory staff) customers who for the most part, probably do not participate directly on c.l.p. Paul and I decided (while I was still at LLNL) to carry on the C++/Python binding work in a public forum for the overall benefit of the worldwide Python community. I regard any suggestion that the C++ Sig should be shut down just because Paul and I both prefer to avoid babbling inceasently into an archived newsgroup (which has a variety of legal ramifications for those of us working in defense laboratories--the spook wannabes among you should be able to ponder that with amusement for quite some time...) but rather to only make postings when we have something worthwhile to say, to be flatly capricious in nature. In particular, I would like to say very directly that I consider message count to be an extraordinarily poor measure of the worthfulness of a public forum. I personally receive an average of about 100 emails per day. I personally cannot possibly endeavor to participate regularly in c.l.p. in my current employment environment. High volume fourms are quite literally the last thing on earth I want. What I want are highly focused, technical forums in which the content/crap ratio is kept as high as possible and the volume manageable. In my opinion (as the SIG chair), if you were to actually be participating on the C++ sig, you would conclude that your time was not being wasted reading voluminous meanderings of people babbling into their mail tools. That the volume was acceptable, and the content rich (modulo spams), and that in the main, when something comes across that sig, it is worth reading and contains info from people who have taken the time to make sure that what they have to say is worth reading. How you can say that this particular sig should be killed, is frankly beyond me. In particular, I am /not/ asking for an "extension" as the thread sig dude did. The PSA needs to decide whether it is willing to host technical discussion about binding Python to C++ or not. I thought that had been decided. Evidently it needs to be redecided. In particular, I am not interested in entertaining injunctions to get the sig volume up by a certain date or else. I am busy with my regular job, a portion of which involves binding Python to C++, and I (and others) can only commit to making public posts at the rate that we have something valuable to say, whatever that is--and it can't be determined in advance by fiat by people who are not above us in our respective org charts. If it is your intent to kill the C++ sig, let's get it over with. But I am saying here and now, for the record, that I consider that to be an exceedingly ill conceived course of action. Paul Dubois and I have both expended significant effort to condition laborotory policies into such a manner that allows laboratory employees to participate in Python public forums. If the PSA now turns around and says "well, you're not blabbering enough into this channel so we'll have to shut it down", that will have an obvious and undeniable chilling effect on Python users within the laboratories. Does that /really/ make sense to you? If however, the PSA is willing to host discussion about binding Python to C++, then let's let this be the last time this issue has to be redecided. As the SIG Chair, I certainly consider it one of my responsibilities to inform the PSA when the SIG has run its course. In my opinion, that time has not yet come. Guido van Rossum writes: > I went through the various SIG archives, mostly at Findmail, and the > following sigs are clearly in coma (and have been for a long time). I > think that comatose SIGs don't serve any purpose, and that these SIG > mailing lists should be terminated. Their archives should be saved, > of course. > > Here are the numbers of messages since August: > > c++-sig (2 in Aug, 1 in Oct, 7 in Nov -- of which 2 spams and one > reply to a spam) > > locator-sig (0 in Aug-Oct, 1 in Nov, 6 in Dec) > > objc-sig (0 in Aug, 8 in Sep, 4 in Oct, 2 in Dec) > > pattern-sig (5 in Aug, 4 in Oct) > > plot-sig (38 in Sep, 12 in Oct, 10 in Nov, 2 in Dec) > > progenv-sig (2 in Aug, 1 in Nov, 1 in Dec) > > thread-sig (2 in Aug, 19 in Sep, 9 in Nov, 2 in Dec) > > web-sig (1 in Aug, 0 since) > > With these traffic levels, you can't maintain that there is an > interest that warrants a separate SIG -- people interested in these > subjects are better off using the main list, where they are more > likely to reach other individuals with the same interests. > > One could argue that there's still hope for the plot-sig and > thread-sig. Still, the trend is unmistakable -- they can be given an > extension of three months to get their act together. > > I also really like Paul Prescod's idea for the proposed SGML SIG: a > fixed expiration time of 6 month, after which it is killed > automatically unless there's a proven interest to continue. This > should be done for all SIGs, including the currently successful ones. > > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) > > _______________ > META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists > > send messages to: meta-sig@python.org > administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org > _______________ ------- End of Forwarded Message _______________ 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 guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US Wed Dec 17 23:51:40 1997 From: guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US (Guido van Rossum) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:51:40 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Re: SGML-SIG? was: Re: xml lib In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Dec 1997 10:37:15 EST." <3497F1AB.782B27C8@technologist.com> References: <881527587.16932@dejanews.com> <34922A03.9C6AB29F@technologist.com> <66toti$2l8$1@nuacht.iol.ie> <199712151715.MAA21990@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> <3496A901.98593ACC@technologist.com> <199712171418.JAA14082@dolphin.automatrix.com> <3497F1AB.782B27C8@technologist.com> Message-ID: <199712172351.SAA05691@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> > From: Paul Prescod > I don't mind discussing SGML in the main newsgroup, but I think that > doc-sig is definately the wrong place for it. Doc-sig has a mandate > after all and SGML is only distantly related to that mandate. Many > people interested in SGML are not interested in Python documentation and > many people interested in Python documentation have no interest in SGML > (eg. Guido :):) ) You might as well have Grail discussions there based > on the argument that Grail can be used to deliver the Python > documentation. I talked this over briefly with Michael McLay, who is the chair of the doc sig, and he thinks that this could fit in the doc sig's charter (which he will suitably modify if needed). I would recommend to start the discussion in the doc sig right away -- you may be surprised at how friendly a welcome you get there. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________ 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 davida@pobox.com Thu Dec 18 00:06:12 1997 From: davida@pobox.com (David Arnold) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:06:12 +1000 Subject: [C++-SIG] RE: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Dec 1997 14:12:21 EST." Message-ID: <199712180006.KAA25322@piglet.dstc.edu.au> -->"Ken" == Ken Manheimer writes: Ken> What i *propose* is that sig managers, who should all be on Ken> this list, all suggest a wrap-up date for their sigs, and Ken> others can comment on those dates if they feel a burning need. i'd suggest that the DO-SIG could complete most of its work by June 1998 if you'd like to set that. of course, i'm open to other opinions ... Ken> If you have a SIG that really is inactive, consider immediate Ken> retirement as a good, and revocable, option. what does the reinstatement of a SIG entail? reactivation of the mailing list and moving the SIG entry back to the "live" list? i can see things like the progenv, pattern and web SIGs being periodically busy as new people or technologies create new momentum. -- David Arnold ,================================================= =================' +617 33654310 (voice) CRC for Distributed Systems Technology +617 33654311 (fax) University of Queensland davida@pobox.com (email) Australia (web) In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice, however, there is no similarity - Dave Butenhof. _______________ 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 guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US Thu Dec 18 00:34:27 1997 From: guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US (Guido van Rossum) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 19:34:27 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Dec 1997 16:02:30 GMT." <199712171602.QAA01971@twix.lanl.gov> References: <199712161902.OAA01055@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> <199712171602.QAA01971@twix.lanl.gov> Message-ID: <199712180034.TAA05811@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> Geoff, I understand that you are doing a lot of work on a C++ binding for Python. I am not criticizing this work -- in fact, I'd like to hear more about it. I believe that Python SIGs use up resources, and that these resources should be warranted. If no-one appears to be using the resources, they are better recycled. The list of SIGs as presented on the PSA SIGs web page (http://www.python.org/sigs/) should adequately reflect those SIGs that are actually doing useful work -- lest people subscribe and then find out that there's nothing there. A bunch of SIGs were established as a forum for a particular project or discussion where the traffic on the SIG's mailing list clearly indicates that the project or discussion is no longer alive, and these should be wrapped up. My message -- I think "flame bait" is too strong a characterization, although it was strongly worded on purpose -- was intended to find out whether there's hope for those comatose SIGs. The traffic on the C++ SIG before yesterday *does* suggest that it is comatose. Here's a summary of the traffic since July 1st, according to Findmail (http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/c++-sig/): July - message from Skip Montanaro about wrapping VTK; no responses - apology from someone about inserting old mail to the list August - question about examples of how to use the C++ module, and answer September - nothing October - one spam November - question about whether there is any traffic; an answer, and a response to the answer - two spams and a response to one of the spams - another question about what's going on This hardly characterizes an active SIG! Now, Geoff writes: > Low traffic on a mailing list does not directly imply lack of > activity or interest. and continues to explain how he and Paul Dubois are working on the project behind the scenes. I think this indicates that perhaps instead of a SIG, what is really needed here is a web page indicating the status of the project. There are lots of great ongoing projects in the Python world that don't have their own SIG. They are being carried out by a small enough group of people that they keep in touch via personal email, or perhaps they aren't interested in soliciting comments from a general audience. This seems to be the case for your project. > In my opinion (as the SIG chair), if you were to actually be > participating on the C++ sig, you would conclude that your time was > not being wasted reading voluminous meanderings of people babbling > into their mail tools. That the volume was acceptable, and the > content rich (modulo spams), and that in the main, when something > comes across that sig, it is worth reading and contains info from > people who have taken the time to make sure that what they have to say > is worth reading. How you can say that this particular sig should be > killed, is frankly beyond me. I am a subscriber of the C++ SIG, and I have not seen worthwhile discussion since July (an arbitrary cut-off date). I expect that even if you don't read c.l.p, if you have an announcement to make it is better off there than in the C++-SIG; I would presume that people interested in the results of your work would not bother to subscribe to the SIG mailing list, since it appears to be unused. > In particular, I am /not/ asking for an "extension" as the thread sig > dude did. The PSA needs to decide whether it is willing to host > technical discussion about binding Python to C++ or not. I thought > that had been decided. It was decided based on the expectation that the forum would be used. If it isn't used, you can't blame me for trying to do a little bit of garbage collection. > If it is your intent to kill the C++ sig, let's get it over with. But > I am saying here and now, for the record, that I consider that to be > an exceedingly ill conceived course of action. Paul Dubois and I have > both expended significant effort to condition laborotory policies into > such a manner that allows laboratory employees to participate in > Python public forums. If the PSA now turns around and says "well, > you're not blabbering enough into this channel so we'll have to shut > it down", that will have an obvious and undeniable chilling effect on > Python users within the laboratories. Does that /really/ make sense > to you? Is this really so? I am proposing to shut down several unused channels. What's the damage? I am not excluding your labs from any kind of participation (far from it). > If however, the PSA is willing to host discussion about binding Python > to C++, then let's let this be the last time this issue has to be > redecided. No, the idea for SIGs has always been that idle SIGs should be retired (without deleting their archives, of course), lest there be no space for new ones. It's just that we have been extremely lenient so far. > As the SIG Chair, I certainly consider it one of my responsibilities > to inform the PSA when the SIG has run its course. In my opinion, > that time has not yet come. I'm not unilaterally deciding that the C++ SIG should be terminated (Ken's actions earlier today were premature and have been reverted). But I do want to know what your plans for the SIG are. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________ 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 robert@directed.edu Wed Dec 24 17:47:12 1997 From: robert@directed.edu (robert@directed.edu) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 12:47:12 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] P R E S S R E L E A S E Message-ID: DirectED - The New Way to Learn! DirectED is a distance education school that will revolutionize the way people will think about education in the future. Students can now study in the comfort of their own home to earn their diploma. What is unique about DirectED is that it is completely Internet based. Students attend classes in a virtual campus that has an employment center, library, cafeteria, computer lab, book store, faculty lounge, business office, student residence, and virtual classrooms. You can visit the campus at http://www.directed.edu. All DirectED Students will receive: Acer Multimedia Computer Lexmark Color Printer Windows 95 Office 97 Professional Books Prepaid Internet Connection for 1 Year Access to DirectED Web Site Toll Free Support for 1 Year DirectED programs are certified and registered with Department of Training and Advanced Education. DirectED is a member of the Better Business Bureau. DirectED partners include the Toronto Dominion Bank, MTS Sympatico, Acer, Course Technology, Microsoft, and Computer Associates. To find out more about THE NEW WAY TO LEARN please visit DirectED's business office at http://www.directed.edu/bus.html _______________ 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 furnish@xdiv.lanl.gov Thu Dec 18 17:12:21 1997 From: furnish@xdiv.lanl.gov (Geoffrey M. Furnish) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 17:12:21 GMT Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs In-Reply-To: <199712180034.TAA05811@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> References: <199712161902.OAA01055@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> <199712171602.QAA01971@twix.lanl.gov> <199712180034.TAA05811@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> Message-ID: <199712181712.RAA03069@twix.lanl.gov> Guido, Thanks for your response. Unfortunately I am leaving town in three hours, and will be incommunicado until the second week of January. Would it be okay to discuss this more then? The very very short response to this which I can muster now is: 1) Sure, Paul and I could work without a SIG. But, that would only cover Paul and me. It is quite clear that there are multiple plans being worked on by multiple people, regarding interfacing C++ and Python. Having a SIG provides a forum for cross fertilization between these projects. Hopefully a coherent plan will emerge that enough people will be happy with that we can submit it to you for direct inclusion in the Python distribution. And although I have personal ideas about what I think such an interface should look like, I certainly want both to see what others are doing, and to have them see what I am doing, before such a direct proposal is submitted to you. I agree that not enough of that has occurred. But I think of the sig as a forum to encourage interaction. The encouragement for cross fertilization is eliminated if the sig is eliminated. In particular, I /cannot/ host a multi-party multi-project discussion forum through a LANL web page. I have to get lab legal to bless every word that goes on the web, and I don't wish to go through the effort of trying to push something through them like that, since it makes them think they're paying me to work for others. The arrangement with the PSA is quite different. The appearance of participation in an external professional forum is something the lab lawyerheads can understand. 2) I would suggest a SIG wrapup review/consideration date of 12/99. 3) Regarding your inquiry which I take to have been "Was I blowing smoke about the supposed chilling effect of shutting down a sig?". No, I was not blowing smoke. I mentioned to some people here yesterday that Guido was planning to shut down the C++ sig for lack of traffic, and the reaction was shock and substantive annoyance. I repeat what I said before, it is absolutely beyond me how such an action were it to be taken, could be regarded as good PR. With specific reference to this comment: > Is this really so? I am proposing to shut down several unused > channels. What's the damage? I am not excluding your labs from any > kind of participation (far from it). let me just say, you have no earthly idea how hard it is for people in defense laboratories to collaborate outside. There is actually, believe it or not, serious question about the legality of lab employees making posts to usenet. Participation on c.l.p can only be done with great care, and the potential cost of a screwup is so great (possible loss of a clearance and termination of employment) that most lab employees read usenet, but avoid posting. 4) I do agree that resources should be reaped when they have served their purpose, and I certianly don't intend to vanish from the Python community leaving you with a defunct sig. I do not view the C++ sig as having completed its job, or as having disbanded for lack of interest. I interpret the low volume as people working hard on their jobs. If you measure "interest" by subscriptions instead of by message volume, for instance, you would see that the sig has seen a continuing flow of new subscritpions over the fall months. 5) Sure, having a sig requires /some/ resources. I also run other mailing lists for other projects, and those I have had to setup and administer myself. So, with some basis in personal experience, I would say that I do not believe the work involved warants shutting down a forum like the C++ sig just because of a quiet period. Its not like the sig has seen a huge streaming of unsubscriptions as a result of people getting pissed off because of an unresolvable argument or something. I interpret just as I've said: People are busy, they're still interested, work is being done, when people have things to say, they'll say 'em. In view of this analysis, shutting down the sig does not seem like the right move to me. Gotta go, let's take it up again in early Jan. If you want to send me mail early while ideas are fresh in your mind, that's fine, but I won't be able to respond anymore today, or again until January. Cheers, Guido van Rossum writes: > Geoff, > > I understand that you are doing a lot of work on a C++ binding for > Python. I am not criticizing this work -- in fact, I'd like to hear > more about it. > > I believe that Python SIGs use up resources, and that these resources > should be warranted. If no-one appears to be using the resources, > they are better recycled. The list of SIGs as presented on the PSA > SIGs web page (http://www.python.org/sigs/) should adequately reflect > those SIGs that are actually doing useful work -- lest people > subscribe and then find out that there's nothing there. A bunch of > SIGs were established as a forum for a particular project or > discussion where the traffic on the SIG's mailing list clearly > indicates that the project or discussion is no longer alive, and these > should be wrapped up. > > My message -- I think "flame bait" is too strong a characterization, > although it was strongly worded on purpose -- was intended to find out > whether there's hope for those comatose SIGs. > > The traffic on the C++ SIG before yesterday *does* suggest that it is > comatose. Here's a summary of the traffic since July 1st, according > to Findmail (http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/c++-sig/): > > July > - message from Skip Montanaro about wrapping VTK; no responses > - apology from someone about inserting old mail to the list > > August > - question about examples of how to use the C++ module, and answer > > September > - nothing > > October > - one spam > > November > - question about whether there is any traffic; an answer, and > a response to the answer > - two spams and a response to one of the spams > - another question about what's going on > > This hardly characterizes an active SIG! > > Now, Geoff writes: > > > Low traffic on a mailing list does not directly imply lack of > > activity or interest. > > and continues to explain how he and Paul Dubois are working on the > project behind the scenes. > > I think this indicates that perhaps instead of a SIG, what is really > needed here is a web page indicating the status of the project. There > are lots of great ongoing projects in the Python world that don't have > their own SIG. They are being carried out by a small enough group of > people that they keep in touch via personal email, or perhaps they > aren't interested in soliciting comments from a general audience. > This seems to be the case for your project. > > > In my opinion (as the SIG chair), if you were to actually be > > participating on the C++ sig, you would conclude that your time was > > not being wasted reading voluminous meanderings of people babbling > > into their mail tools. That the volume was acceptable, and the > > content rich (modulo spams), and that in the main, when something > > comes across that sig, it is worth reading and contains info from > > people who have taken the time to make sure that what they have to say > > is worth reading. How you can say that this particular sig should be > > killed, is frankly beyond me. > > I am a subscriber of the C++ SIG, and I have not seen worthwhile > discussion since July (an arbitrary cut-off date). I expect that > even if you don't read c.l.p, if you have an announcement to make it > is better off there than in the C++-SIG; I would presume that people > interested in the results of your work would not bother to subscribe > to the SIG mailing list, since it appears to be unused. > > > In particular, I am /not/ asking for an "extension" as the thread sig > > dude did. The PSA needs to decide whether it is willing to host > > technical discussion about binding Python to C++ or not. I thought > > that had been decided. > > It was decided based on the expectation that the forum would be used. > If it isn't used, you can't blame me for trying to do a little bit of > garbage collection. > > > If it is your intent to kill the C++ sig, let's get it over with. But > > I am saying here and now, for the record, that I consider that to be > > an exceedingly ill conceived course of action. Paul Dubois and I have > > both expended significant effort to condition laborotory policies into > > such a manner that allows laboratory employees to participate in > > Python public forums. If the PSA now turns around and says "well, > > you're not blabbering enough into this channel so we'll have to shut > > it down", that will have an obvious and undeniable chilling effect on > > Python users within the laboratories. Does that /really/ make sense > > to you? > > Is this really so? I am proposing to shut down several unused > channels. What's the damage? I am not excluding your labs from any > kind of participation (far from it). > > > If however, the PSA is willing to host discussion about binding Python > > to C++, then let's let this be the last time this issue has to be > > redecided. > > No, the idea for SIGs has always been that idle SIGs should be retired > (without deleting their archives, of course), lest there be no space > for new ones. It's just that we have been extremely lenient so far. > > > As the SIG Chair, I certainly consider it one of my responsibilities > > to inform the PSA when the SIG has run its course. In my opinion, > > that time has not yet come. > > I'm not unilaterally deciding that the C++ SIG should be terminated > (Ken's actions earlier today were premature and have been reverted). > But I do want to know what your plans for the SIG are. > > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) > > _______________ > 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 q910h5wmn@traffi1ctower.com Fri Dec 5 05:33:53 1997 From: q910h5wmn@traffi1ctower.com (q910h5wmn@traffi1ctower.com) Date: 05 Dec 97 5:33:53 PM Subject: [META-SIG] Lasers/Optics/Optical Tables - Save! Message-ID: <0eu0QP3P92r8Q> MWK INDUSTRIES SALE! JUST A QUICK LETTER TO SHOW YOU SOME LASERS- OPTICS AND OPTICAL TABLES SURPLUS THAT WE JUST RECEIVED. ITEM TRIMMU12 14 WATT ARGON LASER MADE FOR HEART SURGERY, TRIMEDYNE MODEL 900 TEMOO, POLORIZED,220VAC INPUT , WATER COOLED , FIBER LAUNCH, ALL ON ROLLAROUND CART EXCELENT FOR LAB USE, THE POWER WAS MEASURED AT 13 TO 14 WATTS. PRICE $9500 12 MONTH WARRANTEE. ITEM: COHERENT ARTICULATING ARM FROM A MODEL 451 CO2 MEDICAL LASER. ECCELLENT COND. $200 ITEM CO220A: CO2 LASER MADE BY PFIZER ,1990, FOR SURGERY, TATTOO REMOVAL ECT. 20 WATT OUTPUT , TESTED AND IN EXC. COND. 110 VAC INPUT, COST $40,000 NEW OUR PRICE 4,900. MODEL 20-C ITEM:PDA-1U1 SPECTRA PHYSICS QUANTRA RAY PULSED DYE LASER , GOOD FOR SPARE PARTS MODEL PDA-1 $500 ITEM NEWU1 NEWPORT OPTICAL TABLE 16" BY 36" 4" THICK, 1 " HOLE SPACING, COMES WITH A RUBBER ISOLATED TABLE STAND, NOT AIR SUPPORTED, $750 ITEM: HEPSN1 HELIUM NEON POWER SUPPLY KIT OPERATES UP TO A 15 mW LASER, INCLUDES ALL COMPONENTS AND PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS STUFF AND SOLDER THE CIRCUIT BOARD . 4" BY 3" BY 3", PRICE $75 ITEM HENEU12 1 TO 1.5 MW HE-NE LASER 632.8 nM INCLUDES 12VDC INPUT POWER SUPPLY ALL IN A PLASTIC HOUSING 6.25 IN. BY 1.375IN BY 2.25 IN. TEMOO,RANDOM POL. ,1.7 MR DIVERGENCE. 12 MONTH WARRANTEE , PRICE $45 ITEM MELU12 1 TO 2 mW HE-NE LASER 632.8 NM , PULLS FROM MEDICAL EQUIPMENT .EACH UNIT INCLUDES HE-NE HEAD AND POWER SUPPLY[110VAC INPUT]. ALL YOU NEED TO PROVIDE IS A POWER CORD AND A FUSE TO MAKE THE UNIT OPERATIONAL. THE BEAM IS TEM00, POLORIZED WE WILL COVER EACH UNIT WITH A 12 MONTH UNLIMITED HOUR WARRANTEE, EXCELLENT FOR FOR LAB OR HOME USE. NEW THESE COST APPROX. $350 OUR PRICE $85. DIMENSIONS 9.75 BY 1.25 INCHES, P.S. 4.25 BY 3.25BY 1.25 INCHES. ITEM RAMCNS1: RAMAN CELL OPTICS 308 nm AR/AR 4600 A 0=0 DEGREES 1000 MM FL. 2" DIA. NEW. ORIGINAL PRICE $520 OUR PRICE $175 ITEM TFPOLNS1: POLARIZERS , THIN FILM FOR 532 nm , NEW, ORIGINAL COST $590 EACH OUR PRICE $200 EACH 10 MM DIA. ITEM CO2OCNS1: CO2 HIGH REFECTOR AND OUTPUT COUPLER 10.5 MM DIA, OC =79%R NEW. $200 A SET. ITEM 25MNS1: DIELECTRIC BROADBAND MIRRORS 450 TO 700NM , NEW WITH PLASTIC PROTECTIVE COATINGS , 2 SIZES 25 MM SQ. AND 50 MM SQ. RECOMENDED FOR HIGHER POWER LASERS. 25MM SIZE ITEM 25MNS1 $20 50MM SIZE ITEM 50MNS1 $25 ITEM # BSDNS1: 50/50 DIELECTRIC COATED PLATE BEAM SPLITTER 630 TO 660 NM COMES IN A TRIANGLE SHAPE EACH SIDE APPROX. 1" PRICE $20 ITEM # 45NS1 45 DEGREE RED REFLECTOR , PASSES 488 TO 532NM , CAN BE USED TO COMBINE RED AND GREEN/BLUE LASERS TO CREATE A WHITE LIGHT LASER. 1" SQ. PRICE $15 ITEM# PCINS1 PLANO/CONVEX LENS COATED FOR YAG 1064NM , AR COATED, 10MM DIA. NEW, ORIG. COST $250 OUR PRICE $100 ITEM# INFILTER : INTERFERENCE FILTERS USED FOR PASSING A PARTICULAR SPECTRAL LINE , 11.8 MM DIA. CAREFULLY REMOVED FROM MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AND WRAPPED IN LENSE PAPER. THE FOLLOWING WAVE LENGTHS ARE AVAILABLE. 523.5, 547.4 , 572.1, 512.9, 550.6, 488, 505.7 nm price $20 each. FOR A COMPLETE LINE OF NEW AND USED LASERS - OPTICS -ELECTRO OPTICS- LASER SHOWS ORDER A COMPLETE CATALOG AT MWKINDUSTRIES.COM TO: ORDER GO TO OUR WEB SITE MWKINDUSTRIES.COM {SECURE ORDERING SITE} QUESTIONS OR REMOVAL FROM MAILING LIST EMAIL: MWK@WORLDNET.ATT.NET MWK INDUSTRIES 1269 POMONA RD CORONA CA 91720 PHONE 909-278-0563 FAX 909-278-4887 _______________ 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 papresco@technologist.com Tue Dec 16 16:14:57 1997 From: papresco@technologist.com (Paul Prescod) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:14:57 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Re: SGML-SIG? was: Re: xml lib References: <881527587.16932@dejanews.com> <34922A03.9C6AB29F@technologist.com> <66toti$2l8$1@nuacht.iol.ie> <199712151715.MAA21990@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> Message-ID: <3496A901.98593ACC@technologist.com> Guido van Rossum wrote: > > Use the doc-sig; SGML has been discussed there many times. I would rather have a special SIG with its own mandate and Time To Live. I don't think the doc-sig people really care about the intricacies of our SGML APIs and our design of SGML-oriented software. > BTW the recent fate of the plot-sig and the thread-sig (both of which > took off and then quickly faded away completely) makes me believe that > we should stop creating SIGs. Why not just evaporate dead ones? I explicitly suggested a TTL on the SGML SIG because I knew that we were concerned about moribund SIGs. I would like to think that as we move through various phases of technology we can create and destroy SIGs as appropriate. A C++ Sig may be meaningless 10 years from now and it could be dissolved. A distributed smell processing SIG might be desperately needed and we could create it. Think of them as Python equivalent of IETF working groups. Paul Prescod _______________ 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 papresco@technologist.com Tue Dec 16 16:30:13 1997 From: papresco@technologist.com (Paul Prescod) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:30:13 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] SGML SIG Proposal Message-ID: <3496AC95.86404567@technologist.com> I propose to create an SGML sig with an explicit 6 month time to live and an option for renewal at that point. SGML-SIG: A Special Interest Group on APIs and software for SGML/XML processing ---- Blurb: This SIG exists in order to discuss classes, interfaces and software for the processing of SGML documents (including the XML subset). For more information on the SIG's mandate, see http://***not yet set up see below*** About this list: Additions and deletions are all automated via Majordomo. For details, send the word `help' in the body of a mail message to the Administrivia address given below. The subscription policy is `open', meaning you can add or delete yourself at any time, but you cannot add or delete anyone else without approval. This list is unmoderated and unrestricted. This means that anybody can post messages to the list. Messages are archived and available for download, as are perhaps other useful files. For details, send the word `index' in the body of a message to the Administrivia address. Post messages to the everyone on the list by using the List address. If you absolutely must to contact a human being, use the Owner address. ---- Mandate: This list exists in order to discuss classes, interfaces and software for the processing of SGML documents (including the XML subset). Concrete goals of the first mandate should include: * Python version of the World Wide Web Consortium "Document Object Model" API (this should be a straightforward translation of IDL to Python) * Development of Python-specific event based and tree APIs for processing of SGML documents. (perhaps inspired by similar efforts in the Java or C++ worlds and the existing Python SGML processing packages) * Development of a validating XML parser that would serve to make XML competitive in XML processing. * Development of a filter for the output of NSGMLS that generates the events defined in our API. Longer range goals might include: * Embedding of Python into James Clark's C++ SP library. * Wrapping of C++ SP and Grove API with our Python-specific APIs. * Development of higher level tools for SGML processing (e.g. a DSSSL-like tool, an "XML-Writer" library, etc.) Paul Prescod _______________ 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 Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl Tue Dec 16 16:45:15 1997 From: Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 17:45:15 +0100 Subject: [META-SIG] SGML SIG Proposal In-Reply-To: Message by Paul Prescod , Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:30:13 -0500 , <3496AC95.86404567@technologist.com> Message-ID: I would be very much in favor of this. We're pretty busy with XML currently, and we're trying to decide (among other things) whether we should build a python-interface to one of the C XML parsers or do a fully python based one. An SGML/XML SIG would definitely have my full attention (inasfar as the attention isn't already taken by any of the other things taking my full attention:-). -- Jack Jansen | ++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++ Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl | ++++ if you agree copy these lines to your sig ++++ http://www.cwi.nl/~jack | see http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm _______________ 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 guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US Tue Dec 16 19:02:47 1997 From: guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US (Guido van Rossum) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:02:47 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs Message-ID: <199712161902.OAA01055@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> I went through the various SIG archives, mostly at Findmail, and the following sigs are clearly in coma (and have been for a long time). I think that comatose SIGs don't serve any purpose, and that these SIG mailing lists should be terminated. Their archives should be saved, of course. Here are the numbers of messages since August: c++-sig (2 in Aug, 1 in Oct, 7 in Nov -- of which 2 spams and one reply to a spam) locator-sig (0 in Aug-Oct, 1 in Nov, 6 in Dec) objc-sig (0 in Aug, 8 in Sep, 4 in Oct, 2 in Dec) pattern-sig (5 in Aug, 4 in Oct) plot-sig (38 in Sep, 12 in Oct, 10 in Nov, 2 in Dec) progenv-sig (2 in Aug, 1 in Nov, 1 in Dec) thread-sig (2 in Aug, 19 in Sep, 9 in Nov, 2 in Dec) web-sig (1 in Aug, 0 since) With these traffic levels, you can't maintain that there is an interest that warrants a separate SIG -- people interested in these subjects are better off using the main list, where they are more likely to reach other individuals with the same interests. One could argue that there's still hope for the plot-sig and thread-sig. Still, the trend is unmistakable -- they can be given an extension of three months to get their act together. I also really like Paul Prescod's idea for the proposed SGML SIG: a fixed expiration time of 6 month, after which it is killed automatically unless there's a proven interest to continue. This should be done for all SIGs, including the currently successful ones. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________ 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 amk@magnet.com Tue Dec 16 19:29:44 1997 From: amk@magnet.com (Andrew Kuchling) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:29:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs In-Reply-To: <199712161902.OAA01055@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> (message from Guido van Rossum on Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:02:47 -0500) Message-ID: <199712161929.OAA22484@lemur.magnet.com> Guido van Rossum wrote: >I went through the various SIG archives, mostly at Findmail, and the >following sigs are clearly in coma (and have been for a long time). I I can't disagree with any of those listed. Web-sig doesn't really have a purpose these days; cgi.py is written, doesn't need extending at the moment, and other tools like Principia and Magnet's internal stuff are developed elsewhere. The locator SIG may have a spurt of life for a bit thanks to Aaron's new FAQ wizard setup, but it could equally well be discussed on psa-members or the main list. The pattern SIG hasn't excited much interest; the plot-SIG argued about design issues for a while and then died away. >One could argue that there's still hope for the plot-sig and >thread-sig. Still, the trend is unmistakable -- they can be given an >extension of three months to get their act together. As I said on a recent Locator-SIG message, the Python community has a nasty habit of starting a design discussion, aiming for the sky (an optimal solution that is everything to all people); discussion runs for a while and then dies without an implementation or even any code. The GUI-SIG has followed that course repeatedly, as has the Locator-SIG; Plot-SIG appears to have succumbed to that same illness now. I subscribe to the worse-is-better philosophy of releasing some lame product quickly, and then subsequently improving it until it's no longer lame. Perhaps a SIG shouldn't be started until there's some existing body of code for the SIG to work with; that imposes the minimum requirement that someone had to care enough to write code in the first place... Andrew Kuchling amk@magnet.com http://starship.skyport.net/crew/amk/ _______________ 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 Dec 16 19:54:59 1997 From: paul@digicool.com (Paul Everitt) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 14:54:59 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs References: <199712161929.OAA22484@lemur.magnet.com> Message-ID: <3496DC93.7A418EB8@digicool.com> I agree -- pull teh plug on the terminal ones listed, impose a "die-on" date, encourage discussions to start on the main list and follow the course outlined for the SGML SIG. --Paul -- 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 butler@cs.byu.edu Tue Dec 16 21:07:27 1997 From: butler@cs.byu.edu (Kevin J. Butler) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 16:07:27 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs In-Reply-To: <199712161929.OAA22484@lemur.magnet.com> Message-ID: <199712162107.QAA07374@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> On Tue, 16 Dec 1997, Andrew Kuchling wrote: > I subscribe to the worse-is-better philosophy of releasing > some lame product quickly, and then subsequently improving it until Absolutely--note how successful Microsoft has been with this approach-- and they don't generally even reach the "not lame" phase. ;-) > it's no longer lame. Perhaps a SIG shouldn't be started until there's > some existing body of code for the SIG to work with; that imposes the > minimum requirement that someone had to care enough to write code in > the first place... I like this idea, except: -It may unreasonably hinder group work -If group work does take place, it will be coordinated via c.l.p, which Guido doesn't like much (or is that disapproval only if there is already a relevant SIG?) kb -- Kevin Butler butler@byu.edu 8-) A pun a day keeps the doctor away...and everyone else, too. http://students.cs.byu.edu/~butler/homepage.html (updated 10/18/96) _______________ 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 guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US Tue Dec 16 21:21:06 1997 From: guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US (Guido van Rossum) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 16:21:06 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Dec 1997 16:07:27 EST." <199712162107.QAA07374@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> References: <199712162107.QAA07374@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> Message-ID: <199712162121.QAA01631@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> > -If group work does take place, it will be coordinated via c.l.p, > which Guido doesn't like much (or is that disapproval only if > there is already a relevant SIG?) Where did you get the impression that I don't like group work coordination in c.l.p? The last time I urged a discussion to move it was the GUI discussion. Now that's a bit of a special case, because I happen to believe that nothing will come out of it (that particular discussion has been had so many times before that I've grown rather skeptical). Still, *if* there's an appropriate SIG, it makes sense to move discussions there from the main list; but if there's no appropriate SIG, any discussion is welcome on c.l.p as long as it's relevant to Python (and doesn't degenerate in flaming). --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________ 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 gstein@exchange.microsoft.com Wed Dec 17 03:54:10 1997 From: gstein@exchange.microsoft.com (Greg Stein (Exchange)) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 19:54:10 -0800 Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs Message-ID: <69D8143E230DD111B1D40000F8485840BCB72E@ED> Having a time limit is quite fine with me. Yes, I am one of the advocates of the close-to-dead thread-sig, but I also agree with the assessment - kill the ones that go nowhere. It is a bit frustrating to throw out a proposal of a few things for the SIG to do and get zero replies. Quite sad, in fact. In any case, once 1.5 is out the door and I actually manage to find some time to deal with it, I want to release a new set of threading patches. Hopefully, we can start up some discussions around that. Regardless, I'd appreciate an extension :-). Let's say it's dead on May 1 unless significant progress is occurring. That gives us four months to do something. Thx -g -----Original Message----- From: Guido van Rossum [SMTP:guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 1997 11:03 AM To: meta-sig@python.org Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs I went through the various SIG archives, mostly at Findmail, and the following sigs are clearly in coma (and have been for a long time). I think that comatose SIGs don't serve any purpose, and that these SIG mailing lists should be terminated. Their archives should be saved, of course. Here are the numbers of messages since August: c++-sig (2 in Aug, 1 in Oct, 7 in Nov -- of which 2 spams and one reply to a spam) locator-sig (0 in Aug-Oct, 1 in Nov, 6 in Dec) objc-sig (0 in Aug, 8 in Sep, 4 in Oct, 2 in Dec) pattern-sig (5 in Aug, 4 in Oct) plot-sig (38 in Sep, 12 in Oct, 10 in Nov, 2 in Dec) progenv-sig (2 in Aug, 1 in Nov, 1 in Dec) thread-sig (2 in Aug, 19 in Sep, 9 in Nov, 2 in Dec) web-sig (1 in Aug, 0 since) With these traffic levels, you can't maintain that there is an interest that warrants a separate SIG -- people interested in these subjects are better off using the main list, where they are more likely to reach other individuals with the same interests. One could argue that there's still hope for the plot-sig and thread-sig. Still, the trend is unmistakable -- they can be given an extension of three months to get their act together. I also really like Paul Prescod's idea for the proposed SGML SIG: a fixed expiration time of 6 month, after which it is killed automatically unless there's a proven interest to continue. This should be done for all SIGs, including the currently successful ones. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________ 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 papresco@technologist.com Wed Dec 17 07:14:50 1997 From: papresco@technologist.com (Paul Prescod) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 02:14:50 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs References: <69D8143E230DD111B1D40000F8485840BCB72E@ED> Message-ID: <34977BEA.1E260219@technologist.com> Greg Stein (Exchange) wrote: > > > Regardless, I'd appreciate an extension :-). Let's say it's dead on May > 1 unless significant progress is occurring. That gives us four months to > do something. It may make sense to grant this exception. But it may make more sense to have a more general process for re-invigorating a dead sig when work starts up again. Bringing a sig "back to life" is probably as easy as moving its reference from a page of "dead sigs" to a page of "live sigs" and and adding the mail aliases back to python.org. The archive can continue and the participant list could be the same. Paul Prescod _______________ 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 skip@calendar.com (Skip Montanaro) Wed Dec 17 14:18:54 1997 From: skip@calendar.com (Skip Montanaro) (Skip Montanaro) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:18:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [META-SIG] Re: SGML-SIG? was: Re: xml lib In-Reply-To: <3496A901.98593ACC@technologist.com> References: <881527587.16932@dejanews.com> <34922A03.9C6AB29F@technologist.com> <66toti$2l8$1@nuacht.iol.ie> <199712151715.MAA21990@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> <3496A901.98593ACC@technologist.com> Message-ID: <199712171418.JAA14082@dolphin.automatrix.com> Paul> Guido van Rossum wrote: >> Use the doc-sig; SGML has been discussed there many times. Paul> I would rather have a special SIG with its own mandate and Time To Paul> Live. >> BTW the recent fate of the plot-sig and the thread-sig (both of which >> took off and then quickly faded away completely) makes me believe that >> we should stop creating SIGs. Paul> Why not just evaporate dead ones? I think the model that is used in Usenet (or at least used to be, when Usenet wasn't so swamped with spam) was a good one. When a newsgroup got overrun with a topic more specialized than the group's more general focus, a new newsgroup was created. The same should work here. Carry discussions on the main list until they demonstrate they will sustain a fair amount of traffic, then create a sig. You should perhaps also have a vote. It doesn't have to be as formalized a process as that used in Usenet, but it should give some idea of what sort of long-term interest there will be in the subject matter. Every time you create a sig you migrate the discussion out of comp.lang.python to a mailing list with a much smaller audience. People reading comp.lang.python can easily read and respond to stuff they see in the newsgroup, but will have to subscribe to a new mailing list (admittedly, not hard) and possibly manage an extra incoming mail thread (more challenging if they get a lot of mail). You also have startup overhead (deciding on a charter, etc) and the problem of newcomers to Python discovering that the sig even exists. One or more of these problems will deter a lot of potential contributors from following the topic from comp.lang.python into the newly created sig. So, I agree with Guido. If you want the SGML discussion to move out of comp.lang.python/python-list@cwi.nl, move it to the doc-sig. Most of the people who would be interested in SGML are probably already subscribed to it... (People curious about what sigs already exist should check out http://www.python.org/sigs/.) Skip Montanaro | Musi-Cal: http://concerts.calendar.com/ skip@calendar.com | Python Support: http://www.pythonpros.com/ (518)372-5583 | XEmacs: http://www.automatrix.com/~skip/xemacs/tip.html _______________ 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 papresco@technologist.com Wed Dec 17 15:37:15 1997 From: papresco@technologist.com (Paul Prescod) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 10:37:15 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Re: SGML-SIG? was: Re: xml lib References: <881527587.16932@dejanews.com> <34922A03.9C6AB29F@technologist.com> <66toti$2l8$1@nuacht.iol.ie> <199712151715.MAA21990@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> <3496A901.98593ACC@technologist.com> <199712171418.JAA14082@dolphin.automatrix.com> Message-ID: <3497F1AB.782B27C8@technologist.com> Skip Montanaro wrote: > > Every time you create a sig you migrate the discussion out of > comp.lang.python to a mailing list with a much smaller audience. People > reading comp.lang.python can easily read and respond to stuff they see in > the newsgroup, but will have to subscribe to a new mailing list (admittedly, > not hard) and possibly manage an extra incoming mail thread (more > challenging if they get a lot of mail). True, but this works both ways. SIG traffic often gets more high priority attention because it comes in actively through mail rather than sitting passively on a news sserver. > You also have startup overhead > (deciding on a charter, etc) and the problem of newcomers to Python > discovering that the sig even exists. One or more of these problems will > deter a lot of potential contributors from following the topic from > comp.lang.python into the newly created sig. Again, this works both ways. Until we have a sig, we don't have an "official" mandate. I guess we can make up and discuss a mandate and call ourselves an "loosely organized discussion group", but that sounds like just another name for "sig". > So, I agree with Guido. If you want the SGML discussion to move out of > comp.lang.python/python-list@cwi.nl, move it to the doc-sig. Most of the > people who would be interested in SGML are probably already subscribed to > it... I don't mind discussing SGML in the main newsgroup, but I think that doc-sig is definately the wrong place for it. Doc-sig has a mandate after all and SGML is only distantly related to that mandate. Many people interested in SGML are not interested in Python documentation and many people interested in Python documentation have no interest in SGML (eg. Guido :):) ) You might as well have Grail discussions there based on the argument that Grail can be used to deliver the Python documentation. I'll wait for a few more responses before deciding whether to start an "loosely organized discussion group" within the newsgroup or push for a SIG. I'd love more feedback either way. Paul Prescod _______________ 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@python.org Wed Dec 17 17:21:50 1997 From: klm@python.org (Ken Manheimer) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 12:21:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs In-Reply-To: <34977BEA.1E260219@technologist.com> Message-ID: The defunct-sigs issue has been around for a while, and i've been slow about taking action on it. I've finally taken a few steps, from some good ideas suggested here (and advocated by guido for a while). Here's what i've done. 1 I've instituted a wrap-up date for sigs, described it on the SIGs home page - http://www.python.org/sigs , and created a column for it in the SIGs table on that page. 2 I've assigned wrap-up dates of *today* for several of the SIGs that guido identified as inactive (according to very low SIG maillist traffic) 3 I retired the inactive SIG entries to a new inactive-sigs page - http://www.python.org/sigs/inactives.html . (I left the thread-sig with a wrap-up date of May 98, as requested by greg.) Despite suggestions about making the criteria for creating a SIG more stringent - eg, have some code to show - i'm inclined to think the current procedure is fine. I can appreciate the incentive for requiring some code - ie, evidence of some real effort, not just enthusiasm - but also think there are sigs worth having that do not necessarily have any clear tangible product to justify their existence. And i think SIG retirement should account for the potential for clutter inherent in the current, somewhat loose procedure. I think the looseness is worthwhile, provided it isn't a burden. (I'm hoping in the next few weeks to play seriously with mailman, potentially relieving the bulk of the burden in creating SIGs: the majordomo reconfiguration that barry has to do, and the SIG archive infrastructure setup that i do, to create a SIG.) Any suggestions or objections to the changes are welcome... Ken Manheimer klm@python.org 703 620-8990 x268 (orporation for National Research |nitiatives # Thanks for joining the PSA! # # http://www.python.org/psa/ # _______________ 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 phil@geog.ubc.ca Wed Dec 17 17:47:11 1997 From: phil@geog.ubc.ca (Phil Austin) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:47:11 -0800 Subject: [C++-SIG] RE: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs In-Reply-To: <199712171602.QAA01971@twix.lanl.gov> References: <199712161902.OAA01055@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> <199712171602.QAA01971@twix.lanl.gov> Message-ID: <199712171747.JAA03008@curlew.geog.ubc.ca> >>>>> "GF" == Geoffrey M Furnish writes: GF> If however, the PSA is willing to host discussion about GF> binding Python to C++, then let's let this be the last time GF> this issue has to be redecided. Here's two pieces of information that have a direct bearing on the (future) impact of the Python/C++ Sig: 1) As of last night, an expression template array library (http://monet.uwaterloo.ca/blitz) that pushes non-EDG-based C++ compilers beyond their limits works with a GNU compiler (http://www.cygnus.com/egcs). 2) Mumit Khan has succeeded in porting egcs-1.0 to windows95/NT using both the cygwin and mingwin dlls. (http://www.xraylith.wisc.edu/~khan). This means: a) that the number of people able to compile and experiment with a C++-extended python is about to increase by several orders of magnitude. b) that the numerical performance increase made possible by expression templates should focus attention on standard-conformance, STL techniques, dead-code removal, incremental compilation, etc. The better egcs gets in these areas, the more compelling the advantages of the LLNL-modified python becomes. So the no-compromises approach of GF and PDB is about to pay off, and it would be short-sighted to shut down the C++ sig 2 weeks after the approval of the draft standard and the release of a near-standard conforming free compiler. Regards, Phil _______________ 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@python.org Wed Dec 17 19:12:21 1997 From: klm@python.org (Ken Manheimer) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 14:12:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [C++-SIG] RE: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs In-Reply-To: <199712171747.JAA03008@curlew.geog.ubc.ca> Message-ID: Note that i reinstated the entries for the SIGs that were proposed to be retired - i'm sorry, i was much too hasty in my action. ("Bailiff, whap his ...") What i *propose* is that sig managers, who should all be on this list, all suggest a wrap-up date for their sigs, and others can comment on those dates if they feel a burning need. (Understand that the wrap-up date should not be too far in the future, but may just be a time to revisit the issue of the SIG's retirment, to be extended if it's clear that the SIG is active.) If you have a SIG that really is inactive, consider immediate retirement as a good, and revocable, option. I've put back all the entries, and did not mean to circumvent any objections - i did not see some of them that are circulating... Ken Manheimer klm@python.org 703 620-8990 x268 (orporation for National Research |nitiatives # Thanks for joining the PSA! # # http://www.python.org/psa/ # _______________ 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 guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US Wed Dec 17 23:46:34 1997 From: guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US (Guido van Rossum) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:46:34 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs Message-ID: <199712172346.SAA05637@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> This message from Geoff Furnish somehow didn't get distributed to the meta-sig, even though Geoff cc'ed it (perhaps his syntax confused some mailer). Since I will be responding shortly to this in the meta-sig, I'll forward his message here. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) ------- Forwarded Message Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 16:02:30 +0000 From: "Geoffrey M. Furnish" To: Guido van Rossum cc: meta-sig@python.org, Python/C++ SIG , dubois1@llnl .gov Subject: RE: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs As the C++ Sig chair, I would like to say that I strongly disagree with this characterization. Low traffic on a mailing list does not directly imply lack of activity or interest. As it happens, Paul Dubois and I spent about an hour on the phone yesterday morning (before this flame bait arrived in my inbox) discussing our ongoing work on the C++ interface that we are constructing. Both of us are overseeing significant efforts at integrating Python into large scientific C++ frameworks at our respective laboratories (LLNL and LANL). There is absolutely no question whatsoever that large numbers of people are and will continue to be affected by what we are doing to integrate Python and C++. These are primarily "internal" (ie, laboratory staff) customers who for the most part, probably do not participate directly on c.l.p. Paul and I decided (while I was still at LLNL) to carry on the C++/Python binding work in a public forum for the overall benefit of the worldwide Python community. I regard any suggestion that the C++ Sig should be shut down just because Paul and I both prefer to avoid babbling inceasently into an archived newsgroup (which has a variety of legal ramifications for those of us working in defense laboratories--the spook wannabes among you should be able to ponder that with amusement for quite some time...) but rather to only make postings when we have something worthwhile to say, to be flatly capricious in nature. In particular, I would like to say very directly that I consider message count to be an extraordinarily poor measure of the worthfulness of a public forum. I personally receive an average of about 100 emails per day. I personally cannot possibly endeavor to participate regularly in c.l.p. in my current employment environment. High volume fourms are quite literally the last thing on earth I want. What I want are highly focused, technical forums in which the content/crap ratio is kept as high as possible and the volume manageable. In my opinion (as the SIG chair), if you were to actually be participating on the C++ sig, you would conclude that your time was not being wasted reading voluminous meanderings of people babbling into their mail tools. That the volume was acceptable, and the content rich (modulo spams), and that in the main, when something comes across that sig, it is worth reading and contains info from people who have taken the time to make sure that what they have to say is worth reading. How you can say that this particular sig should be killed, is frankly beyond me. In particular, I am /not/ asking for an "extension" as the thread sig dude did. The PSA needs to decide whether it is willing to host technical discussion about binding Python to C++ or not. I thought that had been decided. Evidently it needs to be redecided. In particular, I am not interested in entertaining injunctions to get the sig volume up by a certain date or else. I am busy with my regular job, a portion of which involves binding Python to C++, and I (and others) can only commit to making public posts at the rate that we have something valuable to say, whatever that is--and it can't be determined in advance by fiat by people who are not above us in our respective org charts. If it is your intent to kill the C++ sig, let's get it over with. But I am saying here and now, for the record, that I consider that to be an exceedingly ill conceived course of action. Paul Dubois and I have both expended significant effort to condition laborotory policies into such a manner that allows laboratory employees to participate in Python public forums. If the PSA now turns around and says "well, you're not blabbering enough into this channel so we'll have to shut it down", that will have an obvious and undeniable chilling effect on Python users within the laboratories. Does that /really/ make sense to you? If however, the PSA is willing to host discussion about binding Python to C++, then let's let this be the last time this issue has to be redecided. As the SIG Chair, I certainly consider it one of my responsibilities to inform the PSA when the SIG has run its course. In my opinion, that time has not yet come. Guido van Rossum writes: > I went through the various SIG archives, mostly at Findmail, and the > following sigs are clearly in coma (and have been for a long time). I > think that comatose SIGs don't serve any purpose, and that these SIG > mailing lists should be terminated. Their archives should be saved, > of course. > > Here are the numbers of messages since August: > > c++-sig (2 in Aug, 1 in Oct, 7 in Nov -- of which 2 spams and one > reply to a spam) > > locator-sig (0 in Aug-Oct, 1 in Nov, 6 in Dec) > > objc-sig (0 in Aug, 8 in Sep, 4 in Oct, 2 in Dec) > > pattern-sig (5 in Aug, 4 in Oct) > > plot-sig (38 in Sep, 12 in Oct, 10 in Nov, 2 in Dec) > > progenv-sig (2 in Aug, 1 in Nov, 1 in Dec) > > thread-sig (2 in Aug, 19 in Sep, 9 in Nov, 2 in Dec) > > web-sig (1 in Aug, 0 since) > > With these traffic levels, you can't maintain that there is an > interest that warrants a separate SIG -- people interested in these > subjects are better off using the main list, where they are more > likely to reach other individuals with the same interests. > > One could argue that there's still hope for the plot-sig and > thread-sig. Still, the trend is unmistakable -- they can be given an > extension of three months to get their act together. > > I also really like Paul Prescod's idea for the proposed SGML SIG: a > fixed expiration time of 6 month, after which it is killed > automatically unless there's a proven interest to continue. This > should be done for all SIGs, including the currently successful ones. > > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) > > _______________ > META-SIG - SIG on Python.Org SIGs and Mailing Lists > > send messages to: meta-sig@python.org > administrivia to: meta-sig-request@python.org > _______________ ------- End of Forwarded Message _______________ 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 guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US Wed Dec 17 23:51:40 1997 From: guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US (Guido van Rossum) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 18:51:40 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Re: SGML-SIG? was: Re: xml lib In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Dec 1997 10:37:15 EST." <3497F1AB.782B27C8@technologist.com> References: <881527587.16932@dejanews.com> <34922A03.9C6AB29F@technologist.com> <66toti$2l8$1@nuacht.iol.ie> <199712151715.MAA21990@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> <3496A901.98593ACC@technologist.com> <199712171418.JAA14082@dolphin.automatrix.com> <3497F1AB.782B27C8@technologist.com> Message-ID: <199712172351.SAA05691@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> > From: Paul Prescod > I don't mind discussing SGML in the main newsgroup, but I think that > doc-sig is definately the wrong place for it. Doc-sig has a mandate > after all and SGML is only distantly related to that mandate. Many > people interested in SGML are not interested in Python documentation and > many people interested in Python documentation have no interest in SGML > (eg. Guido :):) ) You might as well have Grail discussions there based > on the argument that Grail can be used to deliver the Python > documentation. I talked this over briefly with Michael McLay, who is the chair of the doc sig, and he thinks that this could fit in the doc sig's charter (which he will suitably modify if needed). I would recommend to start the discussion in the doc sig right away -- you may be surprised at how friendly a welcome you get there. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________ 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 davida@pobox.com Thu Dec 18 00:06:12 1997 From: davida@pobox.com (David Arnold) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:06:12 +1000 Subject: [C++-SIG] RE: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Dec 1997 14:12:21 EST." Message-ID: <199712180006.KAA25322@piglet.dstc.edu.au> -->"Ken" == Ken Manheimer writes: Ken> What i *propose* is that sig managers, who should all be on Ken> this list, all suggest a wrap-up date for their sigs, and Ken> others can comment on those dates if they feel a burning need. i'd suggest that the DO-SIG could complete most of its work by June 1998 if you'd like to set that. of course, i'm open to other opinions ... Ken> If you have a SIG that really is inactive, consider immediate Ken> retirement as a good, and revocable, option. what does the reinstatement of a SIG entail? reactivation of the mailing list and moving the SIG entry back to the "live" list? i can see things like the progenv, pattern and web SIGs being periodically busy as new people or technologies create new momentum. -- David Arnold ,================================================= =================' +617 33654310 (voice) CRC for Distributed Systems Technology +617 33654311 (fax) University of Queensland davida@pobox.com (email) Australia (web) In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice, however, there is no similarity - Dave Butenhof. _______________ 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 guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US Thu Dec 18 00:34:27 1997 From: guido@CNRI.Reston.Va.US (Guido van Rossum) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 19:34:27 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Dec 1997 16:02:30 GMT." <199712171602.QAA01971@twix.lanl.gov> References: <199712161902.OAA01055@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> <199712171602.QAA01971@twix.lanl.gov> Message-ID: <199712180034.TAA05811@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> Geoff, I understand that you are doing a lot of work on a C++ binding for Python. I am not criticizing this work -- in fact, I'd like to hear more about it. I believe that Python SIGs use up resources, and that these resources should be warranted. If no-one appears to be using the resources, they are better recycled. The list of SIGs as presented on the PSA SIGs web page (http://www.python.org/sigs/) should adequately reflect those SIGs that are actually doing useful work -- lest people subscribe and then find out that there's nothing there. A bunch of SIGs were established as a forum for a particular project or discussion where the traffic on the SIG's mailing list clearly indicates that the project or discussion is no longer alive, and these should be wrapped up. My message -- I think "flame bait" is too strong a characterization, although it was strongly worded on purpose -- was intended to find out whether there's hope for those comatose SIGs. The traffic on the C++ SIG before yesterday *does* suggest that it is comatose. Here's a summary of the traffic since July 1st, according to Findmail (http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/c++-sig/): July - message from Skip Montanaro about wrapping VTK; no responses - apology from someone about inserting old mail to the list August - question about examples of how to use the C++ module, and answer September - nothing October - one spam November - question about whether there is any traffic; an answer, and a response to the answer - two spams and a response to one of the spams - another question about what's going on This hardly characterizes an active SIG! Now, Geoff writes: > Low traffic on a mailing list does not directly imply lack of > activity or interest. and continues to explain how he and Paul Dubois are working on the project behind the scenes. I think this indicates that perhaps instead of a SIG, what is really needed here is a web page indicating the status of the project. There are lots of great ongoing projects in the Python world that don't have their own SIG. They are being carried out by a small enough group of people that they keep in touch via personal email, or perhaps they aren't interested in soliciting comments from a general audience. This seems to be the case for your project. > In my opinion (as the SIG chair), if you were to actually be > participating on the C++ sig, you would conclude that your time was > not being wasted reading voluminous meanderings of people babbling > into their mail tools. That the volume was acceptable, and the > content rich (modulo spams), and that in the main, when something > comes across that sig, it is worth reading and contains info from > people who have taken the time to make sure that what they have to say > is worth reading. How you can say that this particular sig should be > killed, is frankly beyond me. I am a subscriber of the C++ SIG, and I have not seen worthwhile discussion since July (an arbitrary cut-off date). I expect that even if you don't read c.l.p, if you have an announcement to make it is better off there than in the C++-SIG; I would presume that people interested in the results of your work would not bother to subscribe to the SIG mailing list, since it appears to be unused. > In particular, I am /not/ asking for an "extension" as the thread sig > dude did. The PSA needs to decide whether it is willing to host > technical discussion about binding Python to C++ or not. I thought > that had been decided. It was decided based on the expectation that the forum would be used. If it isn't used, you can't blame me for trying to do a little bit of garbage collection. > If it is your intent to kill the C++ sig, let's get it over with. But > I am saying here and now, for the record, that I consider that to be > an exceedingly ill conceived course of action. Paul Dubois and I have > both expended significant effort to condition laborotory policies into > such a manner that allows laboratory employees to participate in > Python public forums. If the PSA now turns around and says "well, > you're not blabbering enough into this channel so we'll have to shut > it down", that will have an obvious and undeniable chilling effect on > Python users within the laboratories. Does that /really/ make sense > to you? Is this really so? I am proposing to shut down several unused channels. What's the damage? I am not excluding your labs from any kind of participation (far from it). > If however, the PSA is willing to host discussion about binding Python > to C++, then let's let this be the last time this issue has to be > redecided. No, the idea for SIGs has always been that idle SIGs should be retired (without deleting their archives, of course), lest there be no space for new ones. It's just that we have been extremely lenient so far. > As the SIG Chair, I certainly consider it one of my responsibilities > to inform the PSA when the SIG has run its course. In my opinion, > that time has not yet come. I'm not unilaterally deciding that the C++ SIG should be terminated (Ken's actions earlier today were premature and have been reverted). But I do want to know what your plans for the SIG are. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________ 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 robert@directed.edu Wed Dec 24 17:47:12 1997 From: robert@directed.edu (robert@directed.edu) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 12:47:12 -0500 Subject: [META-SIG] P R E S S R E L E A S E Message-ID: DirectED - The New Way to Learn! DirectED is a distance education school that will revolutionize the way people will think about education in the future. Students can now study in the comfort of their own home to earn their diploma. What is unique about DirectED is that it is completely Internet based. Students attend classes in a virtual campus that has an employment center, library, cafeteria, computer lab, book store, faculty lounge, business office, student residence, and virtual classrooms. You can visit the campus at http://www.directed.edu. All DirectED Students will receive: Acer Multimedia Computer Lexmark Color Printer Windows 95 Office 97 Professional Books Prepaid Internet Connection for 1 Year Access to DirectED Web Site Toll Free Support for 1 Year DirectED programs are certified and registered with Department of Training and Advanced Education. DirectED is a member of the Better Business Bureau. DirectED partners include the Toronto Dominion Bank, MTS Sympatico, Acer, Course Technology, Microsoft, and Computer Associates. To find out more about THE NEW WAY TO LEARN please visit DirectED's business office at http://www.directed.edu/bus.html _______________ 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 furnish@xdiv.lanl.gov Thu Dec 18 17:12:21 1997 From: furnish@xdiv.lanl.gov (Geoffrey M. Furnish) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 17:12:21 GMT Subject: [META-SIG] Terminating comatose SIGs In-Reply-To: <199712180034.TAA05811@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> References: <199712161902.OAA01055@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> <199712171602.QAA01971@twix.lanl.gov> <199712180034.TAA05811@eric.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> Message-ID: <199712181712.RAA03069@twix.lanl.gov> Guido, Thanks for your response. Unfortunately I am leaving town in three hours, and will be incommunicado until the second week of January. Would it be okay to discuss this more then? The very very short response to this which I can muster now is: 1) Sure, Paul and I could work without a SIG. But, that would only cover Paul and me. It is quite clear that there are multiple plans being worked on by multiple people, regarding interfacing C++ and Python. Having a SIG provides a forum for cross fertilization between these projects. Hopefully a coherent plan will emerge that enough people will be happy with that we can submit it to you for direct inclusion in the Python distribution. And although I have personal ideas about what I think such an interface should look like, I certainly want both to see what others are doing, and to have them see what I am doing, before such a direct proposal is submitted to you. I agree that not enough of that has occurred. But I think of the sig as a forum to encourage interaction. The encouragement for cross fertilization is eliminated if the sig is eliminated. In particular, I /cannot/ host a multi-party multi-project discussion forum through a LANL web page. I have to get lab legal to bless every word that goes on the web, and I don't wish to go through the effort of trying to push something through them like that, since it makes them think they're paying me to work for others. The arrangement with the PSA is quite different. The appearance of participation in an external professional forum is something the lab lawyerheads can understand. 2) I would suggest a SIG wrapup review/consideration date of 12/99. 3) Regarding your inquiry which I take to have been "Was I blowing smoke about the supposed chilling effect of shutting down a sig?". No, I was not blowing smoke. I mentioned to some people here yesterday that Guido was planning to shut down the C++ sig for lack of traffic, and the reaction was shock and substantive annoyance. I repeat what I said before, it is absolutely beyond me how such an action were it to be taken, could be regarded as good PR. With specific reference to this comment: > Is this really so? I am proposing to shut down several unused > channels. What's the damage? I am not excluding your labs from any > kind of participation (far from it). let me just say, you have no earthly idea how hard it is for people in defense laboratories to collaborate outside. There is actually, believe it or not, serious question about the legality of lab employees making posts to usenet. Participation on c.l.p can only be done with great care, and the potential cost of a screwup is so great (possible loss of a clearance and termination of employment) that most lab employees read usenet, but avoid posting. 4) I do agree that resources should be reaped when they have served their purpose, and I certianly don't intend to vanish from the Python community leaving you with a defunct sig. I do not view the C++ sig as having completed its job, or as having disbanded for lack of interest. I interpret the low volume as people working hard on their jobs. If you measure "interest" by subscriptions instead of by message volume, for instance, you would see that the sig has seen a continuing flow of new subscritpions over the fall months. 5) Sure, having a sig requires /some/ resources. I also run other mailing lists for other projects, and those I have had to setup and administer myself. So, with some basis in personal experience, I would say that I do not believe the work involved warants shutting down a forum like the C++ sig just because of a quiet period. Its not like the sig has seen a huge streaming of unsubscriptions as a result of people getting pissed off because of an unresolvable argument or something. I interpret just as I've said: People are busy, they're still interested, work is being done, when people have things to say, they'll say 'em. In view of this analysis, shutting down the sig does not seem like the right move to me. Gotta go, let's take it up again in early Jan. If you want to send me mail early while ideas are fresh in your mind, that's fine, but I won't be able to respond anymore today, or again until January. Cheers, Guido van Rossum writes: > Geoff, > > I understand that you are doing a lot of work on a C++ binding for > Python. I am not criticizing this work -- in fact, I'd like to hear > more about it. > > I believe that Python SIGs use up resources, and that these resources > should be warranted. If no-one appears to be using the resources, > they are better recycled. The list of SIGs as presented on the PSA > SIGs web page (http://www.python.org/sigs/) should adequately reflect > those SIGs that are actually doing useful work -- lest people > subscribe and then find out that there's nothing there. A bunch of > SIGs were established as a forum for a particular project or > discussion where the traffic on the SIG's mailing list clearly > indicates that the project or discussion is no longer alive, and these > should be wrapped up. > > My message -- I think "flame bait" is too strong a characterization, > although it was strongly worded on purpose -- was intended to find out > whether there's hope for those comatose SIGs. > > The traffic on the C++ SIG before yesterday *does* suggest that it is > comatose. Here's a summary of the traffic since July 1st, according > to Findmail (http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/c++-sig/): > > July > - message from Skip Montanaro about wrapping VTK; no responses > - apology from someone about inserting old mail to the list > > August > - question about examples of how to use the C++ module, and answer > > September > - nothing > > October > - one spam > > November > - question about whether there is any traffic; an answer, and > a response to the answer > - two spams and a response to one of the spams > - another question about what's going on > > This hardly characterizes an active SIG! > > Now, Geoff writes: > > > Low traffic on a mailing list does not directly imply lack of > > activity or interest. > > and continues to explain how he and Paul Dubois are working on the > project behind the scenes. > > I think this indicates that perhaps instead of a SIG, what is really > needed here is a web page indicating the status of the project. There > are lots of great ongoing projects in the Python world that don't have > their own SIG. They are being carried out by a small enough group of > people that they keep in touch via personal email, or perhaps they > aren't interested in soliciting comments from a general audience. > This seems to be the case for your project. > > > In my opinion (as the SIG chair), if you were to actually be > > participating on the C++ sig, you would conclude that your time was > > not being wasted reading voluminous meanderings of people babbling > > into their mail tools. That the volume was acceptable, and the > > content rich (modulo spams), and that in the main, when something > > comes across that sig, it is worth reading and contains info from > > people who have taken the time to make sure that what they have to say > > is worth reading. How you can say that this particular sig should be > > killed, is frankly beyond me. > > I am a subscriber of the C++ SIG, and I have not seen worthwhile > discussion since July (an arbitrary cut-off date). I expect that > even if you don't read c.l.p, if you have an announcement to make it > is better off there than in the C++-SIG; I would presume that people > interested in the results of your work would not bother to subscribe > to the SIG mailing list, since it appears to be unused. > > > In particular, I am /not/ asking for an "extension" as the thread sig > > dude did. The PSA needs to decide whether it is willing to host > > technical discussion about binding Python to C++ or not. I thought > > that had been decided. > > It was decided based on the expectation that the forum would be used. > If it isn't used, you can't blame me for trying to do a little bit of > garbage collection. > > > If it is your intent to kill the C++ sig, let's get it over with. But > > I am saying here and now, for the record, that I consider that to be > > an exceedingly ill conceived course of action. Paul Dubois and I have > > both expended significant effort to condition laborotory policies into > > such a manner that allows laboratory employees to participate in > > Python public forums. If the PSA now turns around and says "well, > > you're not blabbering enough into this channel so we'll have to shut > > it down", that will have an obvious and undeniable chilling effect on > > Python users within the laboratories. Does that /really/ make sense > > to you? > > Is this really so? I am proposing to shut down several unused > channels. What's the damage? I am not excluding your labs from any > kind of participation (far from it). > > > If however, the PSA is willing to host discussion about binding Python > > to C++, then let's let this be the last time this issue has to be > > redecided. > > No, the idea for SIGs has always been that idle SIGs should be retired > (without deleting their archives, of course), lest there be no space > for new ones. It's just that we have been extremely lenient so far. > > > As the SIG Chair, I certainly consider it one of my responsibilities > > to inform the PSA when the SIG has run its course. In my opinion, > > that time has not yet come. > > I'm not unilaterally deciding that the C++ SIG should be terminated > (Ken's actions earlier today were premature and have been reverted). > But I do want to know what your plans for the SIG are. > > --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) > > _______________ > 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 _______________