Re: Philly Lambda Charter / Splintering, was Re: Scala in Philly?

["Kyle R. Burton" <kyle.burton@gmail.com>]

Thanks for replying, I appreciate hearing your reasoning.

> Honestly, it just seemed that a group focused primarily on Scala didn't fit
> with Philly Lambda's charter. I'm doing a lot of Scala programming these days,
> and I'm interested in sharing notes and experiences with others who are doing
> the same. This does not mean I'm not also interested in what's going on with
> Philly Lambda, but I thought (perhaps erroneously) that trying to shoehorn a
> Scala group into Philly Lambda might go against the more inclusive nature of
> the Philly Lambda charter. If my assumptions were wrong, mea culpa.
>
> That said, I see no reason why there cannot be an affiliation of some sort
> between the groups. If it makes sense for PHASE to be an official offshoot or
> subsidiary of Philly Lambda, then I personally have no problem with that
> arrangement. In fact, arrangements like that have much to recommend
> them--assuming they make sense, that is.
>
> Also, it's not my intent to "own" or "run" PHASE. It's not so much an ego thing
> as a desire to pull together people who can help one another. But someone has
> to start the ball rolling. I figured I might as well fire the first shot.

I actually think that if there is enough interest, a separate group is
more appropriate since it can be focused on just Scala (the branding
will be tighter), and it'll work to more quickly ramp up its
participants on the technology.  Lambda is (apparently) more of a
general interest group, in contrast to what PHASE looks like it will
be.  Focus is a good thing.

The only benefit I can think of is sharing the meeting space.  Having
to coordinate between both groups with respect to scheduling may not
be worthwhile - being free to do what PHASE wants when the group wants
it may be a better way to get it started since it reduces any friction
of that type.

Regards,

Kyle


Kyle