Hi, Note that some PEPs are, still, mostly uncontroversial (PEP 574 is an example).
I agree with Nathaniel : PEP 572 is the poster child for lengthy, heated discussions. I'm still surprised you thought it was a good idea to discuss this. Perhaps it we tried to discourage syntax change and/or builtin change PEPs a little more we'd have less heated PEPs :-) It would be *very* interesting if someone was willing to do some stats on PEPs over time: e.g. number of PEPs discussed every year, discussion length, number of discusssion participants. I actually expect overall PEP activity to have gone down since the 2000s. Le 19/05/2018 à 01:41, Guido van Rossum a écrit : > I want to completely avoid discussion on python-dev. This probably means > we should never post the full text of the PEP there. (We may have to > amend PEP 1 to support this.) Are you saying PEPs wouldn't even be *validated* by python-dev? If so, it's not a mere change to focus discussions, it's also a change in governance. And while we may decide to change this piece of the governance model, the replacement process should IMO be something a little less vague than « discussion happens on Github with whoever happens to be interested or available ». Sorry if this is misrepresenting your position. Regards Antoine. > There are probably some other parts needed too, e.g. guidelines as to > when a PEP is considered ripe for copying to the peps repo (and > scripts/bots to make repeated copies easy -- e.g. there could be a bot > that copies a PEP from that PEP's own repo to the peps repo each time a > commit is made to the master branch in its own repo). There could also > be guidelines to ensure a PEP is in a fairly non-controversial state > (probably using the IETF's motto "rough consensus and working code") > before being considered for approval. There's definitely some time when > a PEP has an assigned number but is still controversial -- during that > state debate on python-dev should be strictly redirected to the PEP's > own repo. > > For some PEPs it may make sense to assign a senior reviewer who decides > what's considered non-controversial. > > We can borrow more from the IETF process for RFCs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/pubprocess/ > > --Guido > > PS. Carol: Jupyter's process looks great! I just don't have the guts to > propose any serious changes to the physical logistics of publishing > PEPs, since changes to the structure of the peps repo are so hard. We > still haven't converted all PEPs to .rst format, despite efforts by > Mariatta and others, and attempts to move all PEPs to a subdirectory > have also failed, due to perpetual lack of resources to complete the > task (and e.g. the need to update scripts on python.org > <http://python.org> whenever the peps repo structure changes). _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
