Pyfora, a place for python

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.

If you have any suggestions, let me know -- this is a community
effort!

Sincerely,
Saketh (username:catechu)

Saketh

Saketh <> writes:
> 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.

And the reason to want to further fragment Python discussion is
exactly what?

Paul Rubin

Saketh <saketh.bhamidip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you have any suggestions, let me know -- this is a community
> effort!

I'd like to suggest Pyaspora as a more apropos name

alex23

>> If you have any suggestions, let me know -- this is a community
>> effort!
>
> Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community.

When a community grows and consequently its needs also grow, how do
you differentiate "natural growth" from "fragmenting the community"?

Same question in another way: let's suppose Tim Peters sent the exact
email the OP sent with the exact same website. Would you have
responded to him the same way?

> Rather, please direct seekers to the existing forums (the IRC channel,
> the Usenet groups and mailing lists) rather than setting up new walled
> gardens.

Cheers,
Daniel

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

Daniel Fetchinson

Daniel Fetchinson wrote:

>>> If you have any suggestions, let me know -- this is a community
>>> effort!
>>
>> Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community.
>
> When a community grows and consequently its needs also grow, how do
> you differentiate "natural growth" from "fragmenting the community"?
>
> Same question in another way: let's suppose Tim Peters sent the exact
> email the OP sent with the exact same website. Would you have
> responded to him the same way?

Most probably not - but then because Tim certainly would have discussed this
move with peers from the community, if there is a need for this kind of
forum or not.

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
requires much more effort to get to know what new discussions arose, as
well as following ongoing ones - because the interface lacks a
comprehensive overview of that, and features like "jump to next unread
article".



Diez

Diez B. Roggisch

>>>> If you have any suggestions, let me know -- this is a community
>>>> effort!
>>>
>>> Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community.
>>
>> When a community grows and consequently its needs also grow, how do
>> you differentiate "natural growth" from "fragmenting the community"?
>>
>> Same question in another way: let's suppose Tim Peters sent the exact
>> email the OP sent with the exact same website. Would you have
>> responded to him the same way?
>
> Most probably not - but then because Tim certainly would have discussed this
> move with peers from the community, if there is a need for this kind of
> forum or not.
>
> 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.

If you prefer NNTP/ML, I'd suggest you pay attention to these channels
only. BTW, I prefer ML also and I'm very happy with c.l.p. However
that doesn't mean that I need to be hostile to other forms of
communication and it doesn't mean that I need to discourage people
from setting up other channels of communication for those folks who
prefer them.

If new channels open up for others it will not make c.l.p any worse.
If enough people like c.l.p. it will continue to be a good channel, if
too many too good people switch to an online forum, well, in that case
c.l.p. will cease to be great, but it won't be because of artificial
fragmentation by somebody but because the people started to prefer
online forums (words like "free market" come to mind )

I generally not register on any online forum and will most probably
not register on pyfora either. But I know for a fact that many people
prefer forums over ML and why shouldn't those people be happy with the
communication platform they like and why shouldn't they be given a
chance to join the python community if the only reason they stayed
away was that they didn't like c.l.p. for one reason or another?

> E.g. it
> requires much more effort to get to know what new discussions arose, as
> well as following ongoing ones - because the interface lacks a
> comprehensive overview of that, and features like "jump to next unread
> article".

These are perfectly legitimate reasons for you to not use online
forums and stick to c.l.p. I do the same thing. But again, if an
enthusiastic python community member wants to open new channels for
those folks who like them, why should anyone be hostile to him/her?

Cheers,
Daniel



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

Daniel Fetchinson

Daniel Fetchinson schrieb:
>>>>> If you have any suggestions, let me know -- this is a community
>>>>> effort!
>>>> Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community.
>>> When a community grows and consequently its needs also grow, how do
>>> you differentiate "natural growth" from "fragmenting the community"?
>>>
>>> Same question in another way: let's suppose Tim Peters sent the exact
>>> email the OP sent with the exact same website. Would you have
>>> responded to him the same way?
>> Most probably not - but then because Tim certainly would have discussed this
>> move with peers from the community, if there is a need for this kind of
>> forum or not.
>>
>> 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.
>
> If you prefer NNTP/ML, I'd suggest you pay attention to these channels
> only. BTW, I prefer ML also and I'm very happy with c.l.p. However
> that doesn't mean that I need to be hostile to other forms of
> communication and it doesn't mean that I need to discourage people
> from setting up other channels of communication for those folks who
> prefer them.

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.

The OP *might* come to the conclusion that further fragmenting the
community isn't within his personal goals either. OTOH, he might also
simply think that once his forum gained traction, he can switch on the
google ads, and cash in. Which a forum announced by Tim Peters, run
under python.org wouldn't I'd say.

> If new channels open up for others it will not make c.l.p any worse.

It will, if they catch on. As some competent people will move away.
Again, this is the case in the german python scene, and it plain sucks.
We have a ML, a NG, and a forum. None of them is synchronized in any
way. We wanted to do this for ML and NG - but the guy responsible for
the ML can't be reached, or refuses to answer.

If we had only one source, fragmentation wouldn't occur, and the
competence would be bundled. That I personally prefer MLs and NGs
doesn't mean that I wouldn't turn to the forum if it was *the* way to
talk about Python. But as it stands, there are three kind of things, of
which I'm already subsribed to two - and am annoyed of people posting
questions in both of them.

Now, I can't do anything about it in the sense that I can forbid it. But
questioning the move to create a new form of exchange (especially
something rather uninspired, in contrast to e.g. stackoverflow) I can.

> If enough people like c.l.p. it will continue to be a good channel, if
> too many too good people switch to an online forum, well, in that case
> c.l.p. will cease to be great, but it won't be because of artificial
> fragmentation by somebody but because the people started to prefer
> online forums (words like "free market" come to mind )

Yes. Or all of them suck equally. Free market again. I'm not against it,
but asking the OP if he really thinks the value of his forum outweighs
the risk of making existing fora worse is a valid question. Free speech,
one other nice free thing out there.

> I generally not register on any online forum and will most probably
> not register on pyfora either. But I know for a fact that many people
> prefer forums over ML and why shouldn't those people be happy with the
> communication platform they like and why shouldn't they be given a
> chance to join the python community if the only reason they stayed
> away was that they didn't like c.l.p. for one reason or another?
>
>> E.g. it
>> requires much more effort to get to know what new discussions arose, as
>> well as following ongoing ones - because the interface lacks a
>> comprehensive overview of that, and features like "jump to next unread
>> article".
>
> These are perfectly legitimate reasons for you to not use online
> forums and stick to c.l.p. I do the same thing. But again, if an
> enthusiastic python community member wants to open new channels for
> those folks who like them, why should anyone be hostile to him/her?

Again, nobody has been.

Diez

Diez B. Roggisch

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.

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.

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.

If you want to claim a small Python-related corner of the web, you
should write a blog: if it is any good, and probably even if it isn't,
it would be linked and read by someone and it would add to collective
knowledge instead of fragmenting it.

Regards,
Lorenzo Gatti

Lorenzo Gatti

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:11:59 -0800, Lorenzo Gatti wrote:

> On Nov 1, 8:06Â*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.
>
> 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?

I think that's terrible.

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?


> 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.



--
Steven

Steven D'Aprano

On 11/3/09, Diez B. Roggisch <> wrote:
> Daniel Fetchinson schrieb:
>>>>>> If you have any suggestions, let me know -- this is a community
>>>>>> effort!
>>>>> Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community.
>>>> When a community grows and consequently its needs also grow, how do
>>>> you differentiate "natural growth" from "fragmenting the community"?
>>>>
>>>> Same question in another way: let's suppose Tim Peters sent the exact
>>>> email the OP sent with the exact same website. Would you have
>>>> responded to him the same way?
>>> Most probably not - but then because Tim certainly would have discussed
>>> this
>>> move with peers from the community, if there is a need for this kind of
>>> forum or not.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> If you prefer NNTP/ML, I'd suggest you pay attention to these channels
>> only. BTW, I prefer ML also and I'm very happy with c.l.p. However
>> that doesn't mean that I need to be hostile to other forms of
>> communication and it doesn't mean that I need to discourage people
>> from setting up other channels of communication for those folks who
>> prefer them.
>
> 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.

> The OP *might* come to the conclusion that further fragmenting the
> community isn't within his personal goals either. OTOH, he might also
> simply think that once his forum gained traction, he can switch on the
> google ads, and cash in. Which a forum announced by Tim Peters, run
> under python.org wouldn't I'd say.
>
>> If new channels open up for others it will not make c.l.p any worse.
>
> It will, if they catch on. As some competent people will move away.

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.

> Again, this is the case in the german python scene, and it plain sucks.
> We have a ML, a NG, and a forum. None of them is synchronized in any
> way. We wanted to do this for ML and NG - but the guy responsible for
> the ML can't be reached, or refuses to answer.

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

Cheers,
Daniel

> If we had only one source, fragmentation wouldn't occur, and the
> competence would be bundled. That I personally prefer MLs and NGs
> doesn't mean that I wouldn't turn to the forum if it was *the* way to
> talk about Python. But as it stands, there are three kind of things, of
> which I'm already subsribed to two - and am annoyed of people posting
> questions in both of them.
>
> Now, I can't do anything about it in the sense that I can forbid it. But
> questioning the move to create a new form of exchange (especially
> something rather uninspired, in contrast to e.g. stackoverflow) I can.
>
>> If enough people like c.l.p. it will continue to be a good channel, if
>> too many too good people switch to an online forum, well, in that case
>> c.l.p. will cease to be great, but it won't be because of artificial
>> fragmentation by somebody but because the people started to prefer
>> online forums (words like "free market" come to mind )
>
> Yes. Or all of them suck equally. Free market again. I'm not against it,
> but asking the OP if he really thinks the value of his forum outweighs
> the risk of making existing fora worse is a valid question. Free speech,
> one other nice free thing out there.
>
>> I generally not register on any online forum and will most probably
>> not register on pyfora either. But I know for a fact that many people
>> prefer forums over ML and why shouldn't those people be happy with the
>> communication platform they like and why shouldn't they be given a
>> chance to join the python community if the only reason they stayed
>> away was that they didn't like c.l.p. for one reason or another?
>>
>>> E.g. it
>>> requires much more effort to get to know what new discussions arose, as
>>> well as following ongoing ones - because the interface lacks a
>>> comprehensive overview of that, and features like "jump to next unread
>>> article".
>>
>> These are perfectly legitimate reasons for you to not use online
>> forums and stick to c.l.p. I do the same thing. But again, if an
>> enthusiastic python community member wants to open new channels for
>> those folks who like them, why should anyone be hostile to him/her?


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

Daniel Fetchinson