Aymeric, On 08.05.14 19:23, Aymeric Augustin wrote: > On 8 mai 2014, at 16:26, Michael Manfre <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It's been almost a month and the next step in the process for the first two >> DEPs is to merge the PRs and assign numbers to make them "active". The >> discussion for each of them can take place over the coming months. I hate to >> sound so cynical, but if none of the 30+ current core developers are able to >> find 10-15 minutes of available time over the span of a month to merge and >> assign a number to a DEP, I think it's safe to say that the DEP process is >> not going to work in its current form. > > If you consider core devs who made a non-trivial commit in the last three > months, the baseline isn't 30+ people, it's just a handful. If you further > reduce this set to the people who were at PyCon when the idea of DEPs was > discussed, you probably arrive at zero. Core devs who aren't active anymore > often get excited at conferences but that doesn't give them free time to > execute afterwards.
DEPs have been discussed for years and only recently been picked up again to handle new feature proposals and bigger changes in a more favorable format to the massive amount of mailing list threads that we've used up until now. I thought you'd be the first to welcome such a change :) > Besides the 10-15 minutes could easily turn into becoming the contact person > for these PEPs :-) > >> 1) The DEP process was quickly brainstormed and put in to practice. Did this >> move too quickly? Should this sort of process change be more conscientious >> of the Django release cycle and not take place after the feature freeze? > > I think we're mostly missing someone to bootstrap the process. Since no one > in the core team appears to be interested, if someone else wants to take the > matter into his/her own hands, I'm happy to advocate for partial committer > status > (https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/contributing/committing-code/#commit-access). > Contact me privately if you wish to discuss this. It wasn't quickly brainstormed, in fact it goes way back: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-developers/QguOVc3ymmQ/c1D0aFf3-w8J As I wrote to Micheal in a different mail already, at least Adrian and me were interested in the process to the fact that we sat down and did it. We also didn't decide that in a corner alone but during the Django core lunch with a lot of core devs attending, I would guess with around 20 core devs. I'm sorry that you see the little activity of a month as an indication of missing interest. Adrian offered to be the contact person but left it open to the rest of the core developers to mark a DEP as active. Since at least two core devs have given feedback in the pull requests it's up to them to make a DEP "active", after it has been written I should note. "active" means "implementation" AFAIU. >> 2) The core devs know their "territory" in the code, but did enough of them >> agree to take on /django/deps before it was put in to practice? > > Undoubtedly. Yes, around 20 (does anyone remember the exact count?) during the PyCon core dev lunch. >> 3) Django lists over 30 current core developers. Does Django have enough >> *active* core developers for its current user base and existing processes? >> Is there a process in place for moving an inactive core developer from >> "Current Developers" to "Developers Emeritus"? > > > Classifying core devs wouldn't achieve much. Removing core devs has no > practical benefit, on the contrary. Our availability comes and goes. That's > life! However, we all know that there's no such thing as too many core devs > and that we would benefit from a larger core team. > I'm not sure how this is connected to the DEPs, it seems to me as if Michael is trying to force a discussion on core committer policy without actual offering proposal that we can weigh. I would like to ask to open a separate thread about this. Thanks, Jannis
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
