Le 20/07/2018 à 02:51, Ethan Furman a écrit : > My first issue with this model is, as discussed above, a lack of a consistent > vision. A BDFL is not just there to say, > "this PEP is accepted," but also to say, "change this one piece here, remove > that piece there, add this" -- definitely > not something easily done by 100+ voters. > > My second issue is qualifications: there are plenty of PEPs that I either > have no interest in or whose field I have no > experience with, and my voting on those PEPs would be nonsensical; when that > happens to a BDFL s/he appoints a BDFOP. > > My third issue is, quite simply, time. Working on patches takes time; > reviewing PRs takes time; and being a good voting > citizen takes lots and lots of time -- and we're all volunteers. Time is at > a premium.
This is true. But it's a problem for the BDFL even more. Our ex-BDFL resigned because of pressure and exhaustion. Why would another BDFL fare better? Victor pointed out something I didn't know: that several prominent core devs (him, Brett Cannon) recently suffered from breakdown/burnout/depression. I find the PEP-delegate to be a powerful concept. Why wouldn't *every* PEP have a PEP-delegate? This way we don't need a BDFL anymore. We can discuss how to nominate PEP-delegates (Nick had an interesting proposal). Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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/
