Michael Chermside wrote: > I agree. If we have a PEP with rules for acceptance, then every time we > don't follow those rules exactly we will be accused of favoritism. If > we have informal rules like today and decide things on a case-by-case > basis, then everything is fine.
Let me make a suggestion that might help resolve the disagreement. One of my favorite podcasts is "Life of a Law Student", (http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/) in which a first year law student named Neil Wehneman makes a daily podcast of what he learned in law school that day. One of the ideas that he talks about (Intro to the Law #2) is the difference between a "Rule" and a "Standard": A 'rule' is a definitive test, intended to provide certainty. An example is the speed limit - you are either exceeding the speed limit, or you aren't. A 'standard', on the other hand (at least, in its legal definition) is a set of factors to be weighed by a judge when making a decision. Its purpose is to provide flexibility, allowing human judgement to stay in the loop, but at the same time giving a framework for making those judgements in a consistent way. An example of a standard is fair use under copyright law. When a judge decides whether something is fair use, they use a standard consisting of a number of factors, including the amount of the work copied, the commercial or non-commercial use of the work, and so on. Note that none of these factors are a simple "yes/no" decision - instead, a judgement must be made as to how much a particular case fits the standard. A use of a work can be completely commercial, completely noncommercial, or something inbetween. To the extent that it is noncommercial, that weighs in favor of it being declared fair use; To the extent that it is commercial, that weighs against. So what I would suggest, then, is the creation of a standard (in this legal sense) for what factors should be considered in deciding whether to include something in the stdlib. Moreover, the standard should be clearly labeled as such - to prevent people from interpreting the document as a set of hard rules that they can use to beat other people over the head with. So for example, it might say something like: "To the extent that the module has enjoyed widespread adoption and use within the Python community, this weighs in favor of inclusion." and so on. -- Talin _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
