Whenever I have suggested that a discussion move from sage-devel to sage-algebra or sage-nt, it has not been because I did not want to see it on sage-devel, but only because there are people who I thought would be interested and have something useful to say on the topic who would probably not see it at all unless it was on the specialised list. I'll choose my words very carefully in future!
I have not objection to sage-algebra and sage-nt being merged (if that is technically possible). As for sage-combinat-devel, I do not belong to that as I had the impression (possibly wrong) that sage-combinat was (a) for combinatorics and (b) for managing the conversion of all that code from mupad into Sage, which was not something on my own agenda. However (after taking a quick look at the recent postings on sage-combinat-devel) I can see that there is a lot of general discussion about implementation of algebraic structures in Sage which happens on sage-combinat-devel. So maybe I should subscribe to that too.... done. John On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Simon King <simon.k...@uni-jena.de> wrote: > Hi John, > > On 1 Aug., 11:48, John Cremona <john.crem...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > That's why I think that the attitude of banning certain subjects and >> > interning them into specialised lists is dangerous for Sage. >> >> I have never thought that certain subjects should in any way be >> "banned" from sage-devel or sage-support. > > I repeatedly had the impression that if one of the words "solaris" or > "coercion" or "category" occurs in a post then there will soon be the > suggestion to move it to another list. I'm not a native English > speaker, but that sounds like "banning" to me. > >> But if a small group of >> people are working on something which is only of interest to number >> theorists (say) then it's fine for that discussion to take place on >> sage-nt. > > ... which on average had less than one post per day, in the past six > months, and whose set of members probably has a considerable > intersection with the set of members of sage-algebra. > > That's why I suggested to form a bigger list out of these two, or > perhaps even of these two plus sage-combinat-devel (although that may > have a different flavour). > > My idea of "specialisation" is that one has a larger field of > "increased" interest, containing a more narrow field where one really > is an expert. E.g., I have a general interest in "abstract nonsense", > and thus I would like to keep a general overview of what people on > sage-nt, sage-algebra and sage-combinat-devel are doing, although I am > certainly not an expert in number theory. > > Combining the three lists would (according to the current figures) be > about 1300 posts in six months. That's a bit more than 7 per day, I > guess that will result in one or two new threads per day. Thus the > resulting list would still be small enough to be able to keep an > overview of what is happening - more easily with one list than with > three lists. > > And the topic would still be narrow enough so that specialists can > easily pick raisins. > >> And I know that there are people who read the specialist >> lists such as sage-nt frequently but who look at the general list much >> less often (out of the now slightly out-dated view that there are >> hundreds of postings per day!). > > Yep. In my previous post, that's been the first scenario of how to > frustrate novices... > > Cheers, > Simon > > -- > To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to > sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel > URL: http://www.sagemath.org > -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
