> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>