On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 6:07 PM Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 at 11:37 Tim Peters <tim.pet...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [Tim] >> >>> > If there are 3 Elders [snip] >>> >> >> [Łukasz Langa] >> >> It looks like the number 3 is popular in this context. What makes it so >>> attractive? >>> >> >> Likely because it was the first specific non-insane number someone >> mentioned. It helps to be concrete, but I don't know that anyone is wedded >> to 3. >> >> >>> I see a bunch of problems with such a low number, like the ability for a >>> single corporation to take over the design process of Python by employing >>> just two of the three members (consistently voting over the third one). >> >> >> Perhaps then you don't want a "supreme court" at all. We've been living >> for decades with the possibility that a single corporation could buy off >> Guido. Would it really help to change 3 to 5? Then Evil Corp only needs >> to buy off 3 - but the larger the number, the more likely Evil Corp will >> get some votes in its favor without needing to pay. >> >> If semi-dictators are part of the New Order at all, they need to be >> trusted a whole lot (although I suggested a mechanism for impeachment too). >> >> >> >>> 3 also has high likelihood of ties if one of the members abstains. >> >> >> I don't care about that. How often did Guido abstain? it's an Elder's >> _job_ to make potentially unpopular decisions. If one abstained without >> extraordinarily solid reason, I'd move to impeach them - they're not doing >> the job in that case. >> >> If they tied, that's fine too. Ties favor the status quo (same as if the >> proposed change had been rejected). For that reason, I'm not even wedded >> to an odd number. >> > > That's a good point. Since this is typically going to be a yes/no question > instead of an A/B question, ties that go in favour of the status quo aren't > a stalemate issue. > I don’t think we should assume that a stalemate would be okay in all cases. There may be cases in which a decision has to be made (e.g. if nothing changes, bad things will happen). I think one of the most important roles a BDFL serves is to provide a mechanism of last resort to resolve such stalemates should they ever arise. If the replacement we come up with can itself stalemate, I think there will be a problem. —Chris > -Brett > > >> >> >> >>> And so on. >>> >> >> Likewise in the other direction. For example, how many "extremely >> trusted" people can we even get to volunteer for a contentious, long-term, >> non-paying job? I don't know. "3" probably started with the first person >> here who suggested specific names and could only come up with 3 ;-) >> >> >> Taking a step back, before we talk names, term limits and even numbers of >>> council members, Python needs a "constitution" which will codify what the >>> council is and how it functions. >> >> >> "Feedback loops" - all decisions feed into each other, in all >> directions. For example, the number of people on the council has real >> effects on what it's _possible_ for it do, and on how it functions. It >> doesn't hurt to think about everything at once ;-) >> >> >> Barry calls it PEP 2 but I'd like to understand who is supposed to >>> author it and who is supposed to accept it. >> >> >>> Any committer is in a position to suggest parts of or the entirety of >>> such a document. Otherwise we create a fractal problem of who and how >>> decides on who shouId be writing it. Ultimately we are volunteers, the ones >>> who step up and do the work. >>> >> >> Sure! >> >> Ideally Guido would accept the PEP but I'm not sure if he is willing to. >> >> >> His initial message here seemed very clear that he wants us to "figure >> something out for yourselves". He's tired of the battles, and perhaps you >> have to be as old as him (as I was 4 years ago) to grasp what "bone weary" >> really means ;-) >> >> >>> If that is indeed the case then how should this be done so that the >>> document is universally accepted by all committers? >>> >> >> Perhaps it won't be - after all, much of the point to a >> dictator-workalike is that universal acceptance is a rare thing in real >> life. Guido left us with an interesting puzzle to solve :-) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ >> > _______________________________________________ > 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/ >
_______________________________________________ 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/
