> On Jul 18, 2018, at 4:56 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote:
>
> While I am totally fine with a super-majority of votes for something to be
> accepted, I don't think the minimum participation requirement will work. If
> people simply choose not to vote then they choose not to (we have no way to
> really compel people to vote).
It could be easily added to the list of things expected from a core
contributor. It's not like this is a laborious chore, neither is it happening
often. There are countries where voting is mandatory.
Taking a step back, there are two reasons I stress the importance of (almost)
everybody voicing their support:
- this makes the decision authoritative ("the committers have spoken");
- this ensures that we haven't omitted somebody due to poor timing ("I was on a
sabbatical and couldn't vote").
If you feel like this is unrealistic because most of our committers aren't
currently active, I hear you. But what I like even less is claiming that "we,
the core team" made a decision when, say, just 35% of us voted. In such case it
would be easier for those of us who disagree to claim the decision doesn't
really represent the views of the greater core team.
- Ł
_______________________________________________
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/
