On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:33 AM Jeroen Demeyer <j.deme...@ugent.be> wrote:
> On 2019-03-05 14:05, Calvin Spealman wrote: > > I'm worried this creates a gatekeeping perception that will scare away > > contributors. > It might, but if people are not prepared properly for the PEP process then it's best to spare them and everyone else the time sink. > > +1 > > I also expressed this worry at https://github.com/python/peps/pull/903 > > You could keep the positive part of the sponsoring idea (somebody acting > as mentor) but drop the negative part (make it a hard requirement to > find a sponsor supporting the proposal before the proposal can even > become a draft PEP). > The hard requirement is on purpose. This is not a suggestion for a reason as PEPs are not a cheap, cost-free thing for both authors and those participating in the discussion. They take up a ton of time and if people are not properly equipped to be successful then it just leads to a massive loss of time that could be been better used by everyone involved. Please also realize that the top 4 PEP authors are on the steering council, and some of the longest active core devs and PEP editors are on the council, so this isn't coming from people that lack experience and exposure to all facets of the PEP process. As I said in my announcement email, if this turns out to be a bad decision then we can change the process back/again, but please do realize this is not coming out of thin air just because we like fiddling with the PEP process.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
