> On Jul 12, 2018, at 6:14 PM, Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote:
> I think it would be worth studying the governance structure (*) of a
> bunch of open source projects picked according to a set of criteria:
> - major project in # of users and contributors
> - non BDFL-governed
> - mostly volunteer-driven
> - with an established decision process for major enhancements
> (*) (e.g. as an informational PEP)

That makes good sense.  We would do well to learn from those who came before us 

For the time being, I propose that we shift into low gear and defer major 
language changes for a while -- that will give us time to digest the changes 
already in motion and it will give the other implementations more of a chance 
to catch up (we've been out-running them for a while).

For the smaller decisions, I suggest that for the most part we leave the final 
calls to the subject matter experts, original authors, and module maintainers 
when applicable (Yuri for async, Vinay for logging, Nick for functools, Brett 
for imports, Inada/Victor for the eval-loop and opcodes, Bob for JSON, etc.)  
The people who've invested the most time in a subject area are probably the 
best ones to be decision makers for those areas.  But mostly, we should aim for 
consensus and only appeal to a decision maker when there is a major divergence 
about which way to go.

For the bigger decisions (and there aren't many coming up), I have some 
suggestions on ways to improve the discussions so that the interested parties 
can have a more equal say in the outcome and so that the discussions can be 
more time efficient (it takes too much time to keep-up with long-running, 
active threads).

Essentially the idea would be have a wiki/faq editable by all the participants. 
It would include the key examples, arguments for and against, and rebuttals 
which can be collected into a current-state-of-the-conversation.  This would be 
somewhat different than the current PEP process because currently PEP authors 
dominate the conversation and others can get drowned out too easily.  (This 
idea is modeled on the California Legislative Analyst Voters Guide which 
summarizes proposals and has statements and rebuttals from both proponents and 

Also, it would be nice to have the decisions made by someone other that the 
principal proponents.  From my own experience with PEPs, I know that the 
psychological effects are powerful -- if you are the one spelling out all the 
details and defending the idea against all the slings and arrows, then it is 
only natural to come to identify with the PEP and come to believe that the only 
righteous outcome is for it to be accepted.

python-committers mailing list
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Reply via email to