On 07/13/2018 03:30 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Jul 13, 2018, at 15:11, Jack Jansen <jack.jan...@cwi.nl> wrote:
How about a triumvirate (or trium*ate if “vir” is seen as too male-centric, and
actually the “3” isn’t important either) where unanimity is required for
language changes (i.e. basically for accepting a PEP)?
Possibly, but even if unanimity can’t be achieved, I feel strongly that any
decision coming from the GUIDO/Cabal/Council should be give as a single party.
E.g. if Alice and Bob +1 PEP 801 and Carol -1’s it, I don’t think any purpose
is served by breaking that out into individual votes. I would hope that the
council members support each other and the body’s decision even if it doesn’t
go an individual’s way.
I disagree. My proposal for Python's Council Of Elders is partially
based on the Supreme Court Of The United States. For example, SCOTUS
judges are appointed for life, and I think PCOE members should be too.
When SCOTUS renders a decision:
* the deliberation is held in private, but then
* the judges cast their votes,
* the "winning" side writes up the official decision, called "the
Court's opinion",
* and any member may contribute their own individual opinion,
concurring /or/ dissenting, and finally
* all votes and opinions contributed to the decision are made public.
This seems like a sensible approach for the PCOE to me too. I prefer
more transparency in governance generally, and as a member of the
community governed by this body I'd prefer more rather than less insight
into the process and the thinking that went into the decision. I don't
think it's a requirement for the PCOE to present as a unified front or
to work in secret for them to be supportive of each other and of the
body's decision.
Sunlight, not darkness,
//arry/
_______________________________________________
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/
