On 10/18/2016 02:40 AM, David Soria Parra wrote: > On Monday, 17 October 2016 at 21:52:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> Thanks, David. Hope you're doing well! I was curious about one thing - >> is there some scrutiny going into the PIPs before Guido reviews them? >> Right now we seem to have a scalability issue; some of the DIPs we >> have seem to be no more than a couple of hours of work from the >> submitters. Writing a good review for a submission that needs a lot of >> improvement is in many ways more difficult than reviewing a >> well-argued DIP. >> >> I was therefore wondering - given Python's popularity - whether there >> is some filtering of PIPs prior to them being reviewed by Guido. > > PEPs (sorry I totally misspelled that before) have a editors who are > responsible for scrutinizing the PEP before and as far as I understand > are the ones who can request review from the BDFL (Guido), who either > takes the final decision or delegates it (e.g. in cases were someone is > better suited in the area to make the call). Editors are trusted core > committers that are sponsoring an improvement. > > The process is outline in great detail at > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/#pep-workflow and I recommend > reading it. Maybe we get some good ideas on how to create a process that > is scalable and results in the high quality standards we have but are > more suited towards the smaller community we are. > > We should start small and see how we find something that Walter, you and > contributors feel good about and improve from there: > > might suit our needs.
But this is pretty much the process we have right now! Differences I can see: - currently I am the only person acting as a preliminary "editor" - I don't hold right to reject anything, only to request more information/improvements - it features decision delegates to someone else but BDFL is certain cases - transition between various stages is more formally defined I doubt anyone complaining about existing DIP process would have a slightest chance to get a PEP of similar quality and style accepted as a draft.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
