[meta-sig] The "distutils" SIG: name

[Greg Ward]

On Tue, Nov 24, 1998 at 11:58:12AM +0000, Edward Welbourne wrote:
> just a suggestion ...
> 
> distribution-sig, distrib-sig, dist-sig
> 
> because it's all about distribution: the fact that it involves inventing
> utils for distribution is beside the point, just as the doc-sig isn't
> called the docutils-sig just because it spends most of its time
> dealing with doc utilities ...
> 
> Personally, I'd go for dist-sig for brevity, but distrib-sig trips off the 
> tongue better ... well, better than distutils-sig, anyway ;^>

Not a bad point... the analogy with the doc-sig is a bit flawed, as it's 
charter states that it's about "form and content" for Python
documentation.  Documentation utilities are indeed important, but
they're not the central thing.

For the proposed distutils-sig, the utilities *are* the central focus --
or at least, that's my intention, specifically to keep the sig focussed
on writing useful utility modules.  At least initially (in the design
and implementation stages), social-engineering issues such as getting
more people to distribute, document, and test their modules will be
strictly ancillary.  Later on, they'll step to the forefront.

If there's a strong groundswell of support for Eddy's viewpoint, though, 
I'm not immovable -- and if that happens, I would argue for
'distrib-sig' for it's tongue-trippability feature.

Any comments?  I'm interpreting the thundering silence over my proposed
charter to mean, "Yeah, get on with it already", so if I don't hear
anything soon then I will just get on with it.'

        Greg
-- 
Greg Ward - software developer                    gward@cnri.reston.va.us
Corporation for National Research Initiatives    
1895 Preston White Drive                      voice: +1-703-620-8990 x287
Reston, Virginia, USA  20191-5434               fax: +1-703-620-0913