On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 3:55 PM Jack Jansen <jack.jan...@cwi.nl> wrote: > > Nathaniel, you strike the nail on the head here. > > The reason Guido as BDFL and therefore ultimate authority on what “python” is > worked because it is organic: it is not set down in strict rules and > regulations and timelines and percentages of votes and what not. It works > because a very large fraction of the community accepts it. (And I know I’m > mixing past and present tense and I’m doing it on purpose:-) > > We need to come up with a new governance model, and I think that a > rules-and-regulations model is not a model that Python will thrive by. On the > contrary, I think it has the danger of moving people into a > rules-and-regulations mindset, and therefore lead to all sorts of decisions > being viewed in a “political” light, where before they wouldn’t be. > > And my worry is that be introducing deadlines and all that in the process > there is the danger that we will inexorably move to a strict governance > model. I would much prefer a process where we go here/there/everywhere and > slowly a consensus builds up.
I agree and that's why I also don't like the idea of having a strict set of deadlines for voting on something that hasn't even been proposed yet. OTOH, it would be great if we can at least set a date to start the discussion so that everybody can plan for it and join. That's the only way to keep the discussion open and equally accessible for everyone. If we do nothing, then naturally, those core devs who know each other personally will start forming their opinion in isolated groups. Many people will feel that they are completely removed from the decision process and will end up in a very uncomfortable position. Yury _______________________________________________ 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/
