> 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
opponents).
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.
Raymond
_______________________________________________
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/
