On Jul 18, 2018, at 03:31, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > > I think this is the crux of the argument: getting a group of people, even a > small one, to agree on a singular vision can be very difficult.
Yep. >> I also think a council will be much more risk adverse than a singular BDFL, >> and that’s not necessarily a good thing. While moratoriums and a more > > conservative approach to change may be appropriate at times, I would prefer > > those to be deliberate decisions for a specific purpose, rather than > > the unintended outcome of groupthink or lack of consensus. A singular BDFL > > with support from the community will have more authority to make > > decisions which probably will never be universally accepted, and much less > > prone to vapor lock due to lack of consensus or internal bickering. > > Community support can be mercurial, and should not be relied upon as an > underpinning of our governance model. No? I think it’s critical. Here’s a thought experiment: Pretend that PEP 572 were in front of the Supreme Council. How do you think the discussions would go? Would your opinion for or against be weighed with sufficient deliberation? Would the PEP have undergone the rewrites it did in order to address the concerns early on? Would you have confidence in the decision of the Council, whether it went your way or not? If you lost the argument, how would you react? How would any of that be different with a singular leader? Would it matter to you if that leader was not Guido? Cheers, -Barry
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ 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/
