Re: Digest for philly-lambda@googlegroups.com - 8 Messages in 1 Topic

[Paul deGrandis <paul.degrandis@gmail.com>]

I would love a Clojure group.  I'm actually just starting to work on a
new project that has a large Clojure component (and it has been my
hobby language of choice for the past few months)

Paul


On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:16 PM,
<philly-lambda+noreply@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>   Today's Topic Summary
>
> Group: http://groups.google.com/group/philly-lambda/topics
>
> Philly Lambda Charter / Splintering, was Re: Scala in Philly? [8 Updates]
>
>  Topic: Philly Lambda Charter / Splintering, was Re: Scala in Philly?
>
> "Kyle R. Burton" <kyle.burton@gmail.com> Jun 03 03:08PM -0400 ^
>
>> any other people on this list in the same general area who'd be
>> interested. Drop me an email, if so. Courtesy of Mark Chadwick, we
>> already have a cool acro-name; we just need the people to go with it.
>
> That PHASE is getting started is a good sign - it shows that there is
> a growing interest in functional programming, that we have enthusiasm
> and energy in the local tech community.
>
> My idea of what Philly Lambda is, is that it's centered around
> interesting technologies, inclusive of FP, but not necessarily with a
> focus on a particular, specific language or technology. I would have
> expected it to host Scala - is there something about the group that
> didn't serve your needs or is there something else you expect to get
> out of a Scala specific group? (I have some ideas of what, I'm just
> interested in your reasoning).
>
> With this splintering off, I'm wondering if there may also be interest
> in a Clojure offshoot?
>
>
> Kyle
>
>
>
> "Paul L. Snyder" <plsnyder@drexel.edu> Jun 03 03:43PM -0400 ^
>
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010, Kyle R. Burton wrote:
>
>> interested in your reasoning).
>
>> With this splintering off, I'm wondering if there may also be interest
>> in a Clojure offshoot?
>
> PLUG (the Philly Linux Users Group) has been quite successful at
> avoiding splintering. With LUGs, the fractures tend to be regional,
> when a few people (or one person) gets tired of not being able to attend
> and starts up a group in their own area. Keeping the momentum up
> for these groups can be a challenge, and they frequently atrophy.
> Finding topics for meetings month after month, keeping websites up to
> date, etc., can be pretty draining, and the subdivision results in a
> smaller pool of contributors to draw from.
>
> So, PLUG employs the "embrace and extend" strategy. Rather than
> resurrect the defunct Chester County LUG, in 2006 PLUG West was formed
> as a "chapter" of PLUG. All the infrastructure (mailing lists, website)
> was shared, and the community was strengthened rather than fragmenting
> off. Then the MontCo LUG dropped its separate identity and joined up
> as PLUG North.
>
> Perhaps this might be a good strategy here? Try to keep the critical
> mass centered around Philly Lambda to establish some shared
> infrastructure and act as an incubator to support the different
> subcommunities, with extra meetings for specific languages if there's
> enough interest? (λΦ.Clojure, λΦ.Scala, etc.)
>
> My 0.5 of a nibble.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Brian Clapper <bmc@clapper.org> Jun 03 04:27PM -0400 ^
>
> On 6/3/10 3:08 PM, Kyle R. Burton wrote:
>> interested in your reasoning).
>
>> With this splintering off, I'm wondering if there may also be interest
>> in a Clojure offshoot?
>
> 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.
> --
> -Brian
>
> Brian Clapper, http://www.clapper.org/bmc/
> Man is a Generalist. Specialization is for insects.
> -- Lazarus Long
>
>
>
> "Kyle R. Burton" <kyle.burton@gmail.com> Jun 03 05:14PM -0400 ^
>
> Thanks for replying, I appreciate hearing your reasoning.
>
>
>> 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
>
>
>
> Aaron Feng <aaron.feng@gmail.com> Jun 03 08:33PM -0400 ^
>
> Hi Brian,
>
>> Honestly, it just seemed that a group focused primarily on Scala didn't
> fit
>> with Philly Lambda's charter.
>
> For some reason, the group has been more focused on Lisp than anything else.
> I just checked the
> meeting's<http://groups.google.com/group/philly-lambda/web/meetings>page
> (yes, I just updated :) ) and there were 6 Lisp related
> meetings, and one on Scala. Not saying the group isn't interested in Scala,
> in fact,
> I think it's quite the opposite. It's just in the past, people have offered
> to do more Lisp
> presentations. I definitely think Scala related talks would be very
> welcomed by the
> group members.
>
>> 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.
>
> After all, we had 6 Lisp meetings :)
>
> A lot of people come to Philly Lambda for a break from the norm. I believe
> this is why
> the group has been focused on interesting and up-and-coming technologies.
> After the meetings
> when we go to a pub, the conversation is usually centered around FP.
>
> However, I can definitely appreciate a more focused group.
>
> Aaron
>
>
>
> Dan Mead <d.w.mead@gmail.com> Jun 03 08:55PM -0400 ^
>
> Tldr: splintering bad, variety of meetings good
>
> On Jun 3, 2010 8:33 PM, "Aaron Feng" <aaron.feng@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Brian,
>
>
>
>> Honestly, it just seemed that a group focused primarily on Scala didn't
> fit
>> with Philly Lambda...
> For some reason, the group has been more focused on Lisp than anything else.
> I just checked the
> meeting's<http://groups.google.com/group/philly-lambda/web/meetings>page
> (yes, I just updated :) ) and there were 6 Lisp related
> meetings, and one on Scala. Not saying the group isn't interested in Scala,
> in fact,
> I think it's quite the opposite. It's just in the past, people have offered
> to do more Lisp
> presentations. I definitely think Scala related talks would be very
> welcomed by the
> group members.
>
>
>
>> what's going on with
>> Philly Lambda, but I thought (perhaps erroneously) that trying to
> shoehor...
> After all, we had 6 Lisp meetings :)
>
> A lot of people come to Philly Lambda for a break from the norm. I believe
> this is why
> the group has been focused on interesting and up-and-coming technologies.
> After the meetings
> when we go to a pub, the conversation is usually centered around FP.
>
> However, I can definitely appreciate a more focused group.
>
> Aaron
>
>
>
> paul santa clara <kesserich1@gmail.com> Jun 03 10:27PM -0400 ^
>
> It's not really any of my business what people do or don't do, so please
> feel free to completely disregard my opinion on the matter. Personally,
> though, I would caution against setting up a group that is narrowly focused
> on any one of the nascent jvm languages. As a general rule, the more
> esoteric and specific a group's charter, the lower it's attendance.
>
> If we go down the line from largest to small communities we see plentiful
> options for java groups, at least two .net, ... , one ruby group that is
> largely sustained because of rails discussions, and almost no python
> presence. I suspect that a group devoted exclusively to either Clojure or
> Scala would see a short spike in attendance as people came to investigate
> it, followed by a sharp and permanent decline.
>
> Sorry, if i'm sounding too negative on this matter. My intuition just tells
> me that all these topics are niche enough to fit under a single umbrella.
>
> -Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Trotter Cashion <cashion@gmail.com> Jun 03 11:10PM -0400 ^
>
> Bah! You're being too negative. Though you're likely right about there being
> a short spike in attendance at the beginning followed by a long term
> decline, that's not necessarily a bad thing. I remember back when nyc.rb was
> routinely 4-6 people per meeting, and it turned out that those people were
> wicked smart. A small group focused on such a young language can help each
> other grow and learn more about the language, prepping members with the
> knowledge to be leaders in a growing community as the language becomes
> popular.
>
> Basically, you're right, no one should expect a Scala group to draw 20
> people per meeting for its first year. I'm just not convinced that's a bad
> thing.
>
> - Trotter
>
> P.S. - Kyle, I'm totally down for a Clojure group. Maybe even more so than
> for a Scala group.
>
>
>
>
>