> > Shouldn't people who were not involved in the individual creation > processes at least get two weeks to review the final work > to make up their mind before entering a voting period ? > It seems like we're completely skipping the review phase of the > regular PEP process and going straight from PEP writing to > a vote:
The period of Oct 8 (date when PEPs were due) up until Nov 15 (before voting start) was meant as the "review" period, and this was stated in my original email about timeline: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-committers/2018-August/005960.html I did propose that there was a period where no more changes to PEP should be made. Copy pasting text from that email *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. > > *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. > > *Nov 15 00:00:00 UTC: Voting for new governance model starts, and will go > for 2 weeks* > Send reminders for folks to vote. But I guess some people think that whole fixed timeline thing was bad idea, so I didn't go and enforce all of this (also I took a break from life and reduced responsibilities). ᐧ
_______________________________________________ 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/
