[Guido] > I don't know what to do about this, but Neil H's point that we > might want to separate the operational issues from the deep > discussions makes some sense. Maybe there's even room for three > lists: operational, current code and patches, and future > features. > > But in reality, the difference between the various lists isn't > the topic: it's the group of people. There are at least 3 and maybe 6 or more of us who still read c.l.py (though I've dropped back to newsgroup so I can skip the braindead threads). As a partial solution, perhaps we could use some self-discipline and sometimes say "kick it to c.l.py". I, for one, would be willing to _help_ (not "assume responsibility for"!) monitoring threads of this sort and summarizing back to the dev list. For ideas on which Guido is > -0, I think this might be a good way to guage reaction. - Gordon
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4