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