On 7/12/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But, I remain willing to be wrong here. Just that there is an inevitability > about other peoples' sense of where we are *necessarily* going that I don't > share, > and to the extent we *necessarily* get there I would like to be sure that we > get there as something more than a prophecy, self-fulfilled. > > Art
I think we each have a responsibility to trailblaze, to pioneer, in the direction of a future we consider promising and attainable. We don't all share the same vision, but in expressing our respective preferred futures as clearly as we're able, we at least have something to bring to the table. I think you bring a lot to the table, and do responsibly demonstrate what you consider worthy of study and further development (Euclid, Klein, Pygeo etc.). In possible competition with yourself, however, is not some unified and coherent "other peoples' sense of where are are *necessarily* going". Rather, there are as many individual visions as we have individuals, all pushing and pulling in various directions. So whereas I support your efforts to clearly articulate a vision for a preferred future, I encourage you not to give in to paranoid talk about "others" as if there's one monolithic conspiracy out there (even within our Python Nation) -- nor even four or five. I see no possibility for top-down pyramidal style management at this level, which is why I'm a self-proclaimed admirer and to some extent student of Dee Hock, pioneer of Visa (with MasterCard a "me tooer"). Kirby _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
