> Well, one of the tradeoffs here is that Informational track allows > something to grow into a solid standard without also having to pass the > same level of up-front scrutiny and commitment that a Standards track > item does. I rather doubt that either the DBAPI *or* WSGI would've > passed that scrutiny in early days, and the "free to ignore" part means > that there's a lot less pushback on the minor points than generally > occurs with Standards track PEPs.
The downside of an informational PEP is that it is unilateral. The author can put anything into it, and the community doesn't really get a voice in deciding on it. It's bad for quality (as I think you also point out) if the author of a PEP is also the one who pronounces on it. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
