On 6/12/06, Daniel J Pezely <djp06@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Perhaps we should add to the charter, "Contribute to benefit the Lisp community at large," as a secondary mission.
Would those of you on this list who have been quiet mind to comment?
Agreed.
Do you agree with the proposed minimal charter? (i.e., is the above additional clause redundant due to it being implied by the very existence of this a group?)
No, it's not redundant. User groups exist for a variety of reasons.
What are your expectations and desires for a group?
A stronger base for business actions would be welcome. I'm ridiculously busy right now in a startup where I can use whatever tools I want, but I have severe adaptability constraints and Lisp or Smalltalk (let alone Slate) only fit in as scripting / glue / domain languages. I've started a Lisp-based company before which got nowhere due to IP and business-related issues. I think that business actions require far more attention to people than to technology, and I can usually make an effective case for the right tool when needed. Anything that would improve that would be welcome but it's the least of my worries. One other thing that might be effective is involving UW students in various capacities, Google Summer-of-Code style, by making proposals for undergrad/grad projects for open source improvement. Even without SoC sponsorship, academic credit can be attributed. I've considered doing so for Slate (and been invited to do so) but have not had the time to focus on it. -- -Brian T. Rice