On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, Gordon McMillan wrote: > [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. I think this is a good idea. I think it is important that comp.lang.python continues to have *some* interesting content, and that the impression is mantained that (reasonable) opinions expressed there are listened to, so that bright & curious people who happen along stick around and maybe move on to actually contributing to Python (yes, this is somewhat autobiographical - two of my first three posts to c.l.py were answered by Guido and David Ascher...). > For ideas on which Guido is > -0, I think this might be a good > way to guage reaction. So do I, and I'd also be willing to help monitor c.l.py (though not right now; due to a broken ethernet port, my access is a bit sporadic, and I'm having trouble keeping up with python-dev). Cheers, M.
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