Kees, it does sound good to go with the PSF for pyjs and perhaps to give them pyjs.org if they want to take it over.
I actually had another idea that is partially but not completely orthogonal to extract the GUI objects from GWT or Pyjamas as a set of classes that can be used and extended by CoffeeScript. With this idea, it should be able to use the extracted classes in any OOP language that compiles to Javascript, perhaps including Python. There is Skulpt which is a runtime Python interpreter written in Javascript that runs in the browser. I worked on this idea almost 2 years ago and am planning to post what I have onto github, when I get a chance. It sounds good to submit what we have in pyjs.org to the PSP, once it is separated into the smaller parts, and consider something for the ASF in the future. Chris On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Kees Bos <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Chris Brody <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> This centralizes the disputed assets - name, code, mailing list, repo, >> >> etc, under the PSF, with PSF administration, but gives everyone enough >> >> access to code, commit, etc - and fork development, if need be. >> >> +1 (though I have personal preference for ASF, original idea came from >> Google GWT which itself was also under Apache license) >> > > Out of curiosity, since you do have a preference: Why would you prefer ASF? > > I can name two arguments pro PSF: > * PSF is all about python and we too (same interest). > * At ASF we would be one of many, at PSF we're special > * PSF is quite liberal > > BTW. Communication with ASF is slooow. I'm not sure they'll want us. So, > right at this moment, it's not an option yet and it may never become an > option. >
