I think Nathaniel and Marc-André are speaking wisely here. Sorry, I've not much to add ;-)
Regards Antoine. Le 01/08/2018 à 23:22, Nathaniel Smith a écrit : > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Mariatta Wijaya > <mariatta.wij...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Since this is like a CFP I figured we should clarify what's expected the >> proposal, and I also wanted to be more detailed in the timeline. >> >> Oct 1 00:00:00 UTC: Deadline of coming up with proposals of governance >> model. >> >> To be included in the proposal: >> - explanation and reasoning of the governance model >> - expected roles and responsibilities >> - candidate for the role need not be included at this time, since we're only >> choosing the governance model. Depending on the governance model chosen, we >> might have different people to be nominated. There will be a separate >> process for nominating the candidate. >> - the term of governance: is it for life? 5 years? 10 years? >> >> Who can submit the proposal? >> Python core developers. Individual core devs can submit a proposal, or >> co-author the proposal with another core dev. >> >> How to submit the proposal? >> Proposal should be in a form of a PEP, and merged into peps repo before Oct >> 1 00:00:00 UTC. Proposals not merged after Oct 1 00:00:00 UTC will not be >> considered. >> >> Oct 1 - Nov 15: Review period. >> All core developers will review the PEPs, and ask any questions to the PEP >> author. This timeline allows for enough time for all core devs to carefully >> review each PEPs, and for authors to respond. >> >> There will be two parts of this: >> >> Review phase 1: Oct 1- Nov 1: Allow changes and tweaks to the proposed PEPs. >> I figured people will have questions and will need to clarify the PEPs >> during this period. But if we want the PEP to be final by Oct 1, that's fine >> by me. maybe allow typo fixes still. >> >> Review phase 2: Nov 1 00:00:00 UTC: No more changes to the above PEPs. >> No more tweaks to these PEPs. PRs to these PEPs should be rejected. >> This is the final chance to carefully review all governance PEPs, and >> formulate your decisions. > > I'm worried that this whole plan is a bad idea. > > This kind of process with deadlines, proposals, votes, etc., is an > excellent way to take legitimacy and make it visible. That's a > valuable thing, and addresses an important problem. But it's not the > problem I'm most worried about here. > > As engineers, we know that every design has trade-offs, and that goes > for governance as well. Having a universally acclaimed BDFL like Guido > has many tremendous advantages. But it also has one tremendous > disadvantage: because we always knew Guido would make the final > decision, and that we could always appeal to him when things didn't go > the way we like, python-dev has never had to learn to work out > disagreements and get along. > > Now we have to figure that out: the legitimacy of any new governance > system is ultimately going to have to rest on the consensus of the > core devs. The only way I know to get that is by taking the time to > work through the difficult conversations. If these deadlines just > encourage people to keep moving and engaging, then that's great. But I > worry that if we impose a cut-off like this up front, then we'll take > that as an excuse to skip doing that work, because there's no time, > and if someone disagrees it's easier to vote than to actually engage > and work it out. > > -n > _______________________________________________ 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/
