Pyfora, a place for python

On Nov 3, 11:37*am, Steven D'Aprano <st...@REMOVE-THIS-
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:11:59 -0800, Lorenzo Gatti wrote:
[...]
> Are you saying that now that comp.lang.python and stackoverflow exists,
> there no more room in the world for any more Python forums?
>
> I think that's terrible.

Although there is a high barrier to entry for general Python forums,
it is not a problem because the door is always open for specialized
forums that become the natural "home" of some group or thought leader
or of some special interest, for example the forum of a new software
product or of the fans of an important blog.

Unfortunately, pyfora.org has neither a distinct crowd behind it nor
an unique topic, and thus no niche to fill; it can only contribute
fragmentation, which is unfortunate because Saketh seems enthusiastic.

What in some fields (e.g. warez forums or art boards) would be healthy
redundancy and competition between sites and forums becomes pure
fragmentation if the only effect of multiple forums is to separate the
same questions and opinions that would be posted elsewhere from
potential readers and answerers.
Reasonable people know this and post their requests for help and
discussions either in the same appropriate places as everyone else or
in random places they know and like; one needs serious personal issues
to abandon popular forums for obscure ones.

> Saketh, would you care to give a brief explanation for sets your forum
> apart from the existing Python forums, and why people should choose to
> spend time there instead of (or as well as) the existing forums? What
> advantages does it have?

That's the point, I couldn't put it better.

> > It would be the Internet equivalent of looking for a poker tournament in
> > a desert valley instead of driving half an hour less and going to Las
> > Vegas:
> > [...]
> How about avoiding the noise and obtrusive advertising and bright lights
> of Las Vegas, the fakery, the "showmanship",
> [...]
> if you're interested in poker without all the mayonnaise, maybe
> that poker tournament away from the tourists is exactly what you need.

I didn't explain my similitude clearly: I was comparing the fitness
for purpose of going to Las Vegas with a plan to gamble with the
absurdity of stopping, say, at an isolated gas station in the hope of
finding a poker tournament there.
If you are hinting that popular newsgroups and forums might be so full
of fakery, showmanship, mayonnaise, etc. to deserve secession, it's
another topic.

Regards,
Lorenzo Gatti

Lorenzo Gatti

Lorenzo Gatti wrote:
> On Nov 1, 8:06 am, Saketh <saketh.bhamidip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I am proud to announce the release of Pyfora (http://pyfora.org), an
>> online community of Python enthusiasts to supplement comp.lang.python
>> and #python. While the site is small right now, please feel free to
>> register and post any questions or tips you may have.
>
> I'll feel free to not even bookmark it. I'm sorry, but it is just a
> bad idea. [...]

I agree.

> Your forum cannot (and should not) compete either with Python's
> official newsgroup, IRC channel and mailing list or with popular, well-
> made and well-frequented general programming sites like
> stackoverflow.com. [...]

The good thing is, unless something the announced new forum gets
critical mass, it will just slowly (or not-so-slowly die).

But even though I'm an old-timer who still prefers newsgroups/mailing
lists, I think that there should be something better, browser based. In
particular supporting moderation/voting and tagging/filtering.

-- Gerhard

Gerhard Häring

>> I was referring to this comment by Ben:
>>
>> "Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community."
>>
>> This IMHO is hostile, because it presupposes that the mere goal of the
>> OP is fragmenting the community
>
> It presupposes nothing of any goal. It describes a predictable result of
> the OP's efforts, and requests those efforts to cease.
>
> So I deny the characterisation of that request as hostile.

Probably this thread is going by far too far but let's see this again,

If A says to B "please don't do X" then A assumes that B does X.
Otherwise the request of A doesn't make sense, since it doesn't make
sense to ask somebody not to do something that he/she is not doing.

Agreed?

If no, please explain why you don't agree.

If yes, then I guess we will also agree that if A says to B "please
don't make efforts to do X" then request of A only makes sense if B
makes an effort to do X.

Agreed?

If no, please explain why.

If yes, great, let's continue! If A says to B "please don't make
efforts to fragment the community" then this request from A only makes
sense if B makes an effort to fragment the community.

Agreed?

If no, why not?

If yes, we are almost there! In our example the request of A only
makes sense if B is making an effort to fragment the community, in
other words, assuming that A tries to make a meaningful request, A is
assuming that B is making an effort to fragment the community.

Agreed?

If not, why not?

If yes, with the substitution A = Ben and B = OP we get "in order for
Ben's request to make sense, Ben has to assume that the OP is making
an effort to fragment the community". This assumption on the part of
Ben, I think, is hostile, since it assumes that the OP is making an
effort to do something not nice. Whether the OP is indeed doing
something not nice, is irrelevant. If the OP does do something not
nice, the hostility is warranted. If the OP is not doing anything not
nice, the hostility is unwarranted. But the fact that Ben was hostile
is a fact

Cheers,
Daniel


--
Psss, psss, put it down! - http://www.cafepress.com/putitdown

Daniel Fetchinson

>> Since when is the mere suggestion that fragmentation will occur and if
>> that's a desirable consequence is hostile? The OP is not bound to it,
>> and I also don't see the tone used by the two immediate answerers being
>> hostile. Paul might have been terse - but hostility looks different IMHO.
>
> I was referring to this comment by Ben:
>
> "Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community."
>
> This IMHO is hostile, because it presupposes that the mere goal of the
> OP is fragmenting the community, which is something negative, i.e. it
> contains negative prejudice. What I would have written in Ben's place:
>
> Have you considered the possibility that your website will further
> fragment the community?
>
> This wouldn't have been hostile, IMHO.

Well, this is *deep* into the realms of semantics and dialectics. To an
extend that personal prejudice would change the perception of the sentence.
If everything posted here (and elsewhere) had to be worded so carefully,
we'd hardly discussing anything at all.

> Competent people will only move away if the website is
> great/fun/useful/etc. In which case we should welcome it, since
> something great/fun/useful/etc is a good thing. If it's not
> great/fun/useful/etc competent people will not move away, in which
> case c.l.p. will not be any worse as a result of launching the new
> website.

There is not only the problem of people moving away - but also of them not
even finding *this* place to discuss because they found pyfora first, and
thus the "danger" of them getting not the good answers they are looking
for. This sometimes already happens, if one of the google ad farms out
there that tries to lure people onto their pages simply reproduces c.l.py
content - and people believe it's a genuine forum - and wonder why they
don't get answers there.

> Welcome to open source, the world of infinitely many forks, code
> variants, MLs, forums, NGs, websites, in other words, welcome to the
> bazaar!

Oh please. If every dissent on the direction of an open-source project (or
commercial one) would lead to forking, we'd end up with a lot of projects
which none of them being competitive and mature. So can we scrap this
straw-man of an argument?

Diez

Diez B. Roggisch

Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
>>>I was referring to this comment by Ben:
>>>
>>>"Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community."
>>>
>>>This IMHO is hostile, because it presupposes that the mere goal of the
>>>OP is fragmenting the community
>>
>>It presupposes nothing of any goal. It describes a predictable result of
>>the OP's efforts, and requests those efforts to cease.
>>
>>So I deny the characterisation of that request as hostile.
>

[mass snippitude]

> If yes, with the substitution A = Ben and B = OP we get "in order for
> Ben's request to make sense, Ben has to assume that the OP is making
> an effort to fragment the community". This assumption on the part of
> Ben, I think, is hostile, since it assumes that the OP is making an
> effort to do something not nice. Whether the OP is indeed doing
> something not nice, is irrelevant. If the OP does do something not
> nice, the hostility is warranted. If the OP is not doing anything not
> nice, the hostility is unwarranted. But the fact that Ben was hostile
> is a fact

You were doing fine until you brought in the hostility. I must agree
with Ben that his comment was not hostile. It was merely a statement.
Not an exclamation, no name calling, just a plain request rooted in reality.

And that's a fact.

Shall we now discuss the nature of the space/time continuum and the
exact reality of quarks?

~Ethan~

Ethan Furman

>>>>I was referring to this comment by Ben:
>>>>
>>>>"Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community."
>>>>
>>>>This IMHO is hostile, because it presupposes that the mere goal of the
>>>>OP is fragmenting the community
>>>
>>>It presupposes nothing of any goal. It describes a predictable result of
>>>the OP's efforts, and requests those efforts to cease.
>>>
>>>So I deny the characterisation of that request as hostile.
>>
>
> [mass snippitude]
>
>> If yes, with the substitution A = Ben and B = OP we get "in order for
>> Ben's request to make sense, Ben has to assume that the OP is making
>> an effort to fragment the community". This assumption on the part of
>> Ben, I think, is hostile, since it assumes that the OP is making an
>> effort to do something not nice. Whether the OP is indeed doing
>> something not nice, is irrelevant. If the OP does do something not
>> nice, the hostility is warranted. If the OP is not doing anything not
>> nice, the hostility is unwarranted. But the fact that Ben was hostile
>> is a fact
>
> You were doing fine until you brought in the hostility. I must agree
> with Ben that his comment was not hostile. It was merely a statement.
> Not an exclamation, no name calling, just a plain request rooted in reality.

Okay, before we get to quarks let's see what 'hostile' means
>From Merriam-Webster http://www.learnersdictionary.net/dictionary/hostile :

1 a : of or relating to an enemy <hostile fire>
b : marked by malevolence <a hostile act>
c : openly opposed or resisting <a hostile critic> <hostile to new ideas>
d (1) : not hospitable <plants growing in a hostile environment>
(2) : having an intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive nature
<a hostile workplace>

Now, I think the OP was perceived by Ben as doing something which he
thinks is not good. We most probably agree on this. In other words,
Ben was opposing the OP's ideas. Yet in other words, Ben was resisting
the OP's ideas. And yet in other words, Ben was not hospitable. So
perhaps 1a and 1b doesn't quite fit the bill since Ben didn't go as
far as call the OP an enemy and he wasn't evil or wished harm to the
OP, but 1c and d(1) are certainly correctly describing his behavior
and to a lesser extent d(2) as well.

And the quarks......

Cheers,
Daniel

> And that's a fact.
>
> Shall we now discuss the nature of the space/time continuum and the
> exact reality of quarks?



--
Psss, psss, put it down! - http://www.cafepress.com/putitdown

Daniel Fetchinson

>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I am proud to announce the release of Pyfora (http://pyfora.org), an
>>> online community of Python enthusiasts to supplement comp.lang.python
>>> and #python. While the site is small right now, please feel free to
>>> register and post any questions or tips you may have.
>>
>> I'll feel free to not even bookmark it. I'm sorry, but it is just a bad
>> idea.
>>
>> Your forum cannot (and should not) compete either with Python's official
>> newsgroup, IRC channel and mailing list or with popular, well- made and
>> well-frequented general programming sites like stackoverflow.com.
>
> Are you saying that now that comp.lang.python and stackoverflow exists,
> there no more room in the world for any more Python forums?

Exactly.

> I think that's terrible.

Exactly.

> Saketh, would you care to give a brief explanation for sets your forum
> apart from the existing Python forums, and why people should choose to
> spend time there instead of (or as well as) the existing forums? What
> advantages does it have?

Yes, this is about the right kind of response I think everybody
deserves who puts energy/enthusiasm/effort/time into putting together
a python-related forum.

Cheers,
Daniel


>> It would be the Internet equivalent of looking for a poker tournament in
>> a desert valley instead of driving half an hour less and going to Las
>> Vegas: there are no incentives to choose your forum, except perhaps for
>> isolationists who value being a big fish in a small pond over being part
>> of a community.
>
> (Funny you mention Las Vegas -- it started off as a tiny little town in
> the middle of the desert too.)
>
> How about avoiding the noise and obtrusive advertising and bright lights
> of Las Vegas, the fakery, the "showmanship", the horrible fake pyramid
> and has-been celebrities, the crowds, the tackiness, the high prices, the
> bright lights that never turn off (Las Vegas is the brightest city on
> Earth)... if you're interested in poker without all the mayonnaise, maybe
> that poker tournament away from the tourists is exactly what you need.
>
> Personally, if I wanted to gamble, the last place I would go is any house
> which had gold-plated taps in the bathrooms. That tells me the house's
> percentage is *way* too high.


--
Psss, psss, put it down! - http://www.cafepress.com/putitdown

Daniel Fetchinson

Daniel Fetchinson wrote:
>>>>>I was referring to this comment by Ben:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community."
>>>>>
>>>>>This IMHO is hostile, because it presupposes that the mere goal of the
>>>>>OP is fragmenting the community
>>>>
>>>>It presupposes nothing of any goal. It describes a predictable result of
>>>>the OP's efforts, and requests those efforts to cease.
>>>>
>>>>So I deny the characterisation of that request as hostile.
>>>
>>[mass snippitude]
>>
>>
>>>If yes, with the substitution A = Ben and B = OP we get "in order for
>>>Ben's request to make sense, Ben has to assume that the OP is making
>>>an effort to fragment the community". This assumption on the part of
>>>Ben, I think, is hostile, since it assumes that the OP is making an
>>>effort to do something not nice. Whether the OP is indeed doing
>>>something not nice, is irrelevant. If the OP does do something not
>>>nice, the hostility is warranted. If the OP is not doing anything not
>>>nice, the hostility is unwarranted. But the fact that Ben was hostile
>>>is a fact
>>
>>You were doing fine until you brought in the hostility. I must agree
>>with Ben that his comment was not hostile. It was merely a statement.
>>Not an exclamation, no name calling, just a plain request rooted in reality.
>
>
> Okay, before we get to quarks let's see what 'hostile' means
>>From Merriam-Webster http://www.learnersdictionary.net/dictionary/hostile :
>
> 1 a : of or relating to an enemy <hostile fire>
> b : marked by malevolence <a hostile act>
> c : openly opposed or resisting <a hostile critic> <hostile to new ideas>
> d (1) : not hospitable <plants growing in a hostile environment>
> (2) : having an intimidating, antagonistic, or offensive nature
> <a hostile workplace>
>
> Now, I think the OP was perceived by Ben as doing something which he
> thinks is not good. We most probably agree on this. In other words,
> Ben was opposing the OP's ideas. Yet in other words, Ben was resisting
> the OP's ideas. And yet in other words, Ben was not hospitable. So
> perhaps 1a and 1b doesn't quite fit the bill since Ben didn't go as
> far as call the OP an enemy and he wasn't evil or wished harm to the
> OP, but 1c and d(1) are certainly correctly describing his behavior
> and to a lesser extent d(2) as well.

AH hahahahahahah.

Okay, you got me. However, if we're going to start looking up the exact
denotations of words to justify our remarks, surely we should also pay
attention to the connotations? In normal, everyday speach the
denotations of 'resisting' and 'opposed to' are very different from
'hostile' -- hence such phrases as 'resisting with hostility' and
'hostiley opposed to'.

In other words, I'll grant you the win of that hair, but I still would
not characterize it as hostile.

~Ethan~

Ethan Furman

On 11/2/09 3:44 PM, Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
> Being from germany, I can say that we *have* this fragmentation, and
> frankly: I don't like it. I prefer my communication via NNTP/ML, and not
> with those visually rather noisy and IMHO suboptimal forums. E.g. it

That's right... forums, although more "accessible" to all the people who
can't/doesn't want to use specific email or nntp clients, are quite slow
to use.

But I think Ubuntu forums support threads and are kind of "channeled"
between ML and webinterface... something like Google Groups; I think
THAT would be a good idea. What about trying to "channel"
comp.lang.python and a forum?

--
Alan Franzoni
contact me at public@[mysurname].eu

Alan Franzoni

In article <zenIm.90683$>,
Alan Franzoni <> wrote:

> On 11/2/09 3:44 PM, Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
> > Being from germany, I can say that we *have* this fragmentation, and
> > frankly: I don't like it. I prefer my communication via NNTP/ML, and not
> > with those visually rather noisy and IMHO suboptimal forums. E.g. it
>
> That's right... forums, although more "accessible" to all the people who
> can't/doesn't want to use specific email or nntp clients, are quite slow
> to use.
>
> But I think Ubuntu forums support threads and are kind of "channeled"
> between ML and webinterface... something like Google Groups; I think
> THAT would be a good idea. What about trying to "channel"
> comp.lang.python and a forum?

comp.lang.python *is* already "channel"ed in multiple venues: the Usenet
group itself, the base python.org mailing list, gmane.org (NNTP
newsgroup from the mailing list, various web interfaces, RSS feed),
google groups, and others.

--
Ned Deily,

Ned Deily