Mat Schaffer on 4 Jun 2010 03:45:24 -0700 |
So is there anyone here that feels they could give a clojure talk? Or maybe lead a small workshop? I could honestly care less about what group umbrella it falls under. A clojure talk by any other name would smell just as sweet. -Mat On Jun 4, 2010, at 1:01 AM, Paul deGrandis <paul.degrandis@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >> >> >> >> >>
|
|