A natural question that arises is who will be responsible for authoring it? I'd guess anyone with a strong enough opinion (and there's no shortage of those) could be the one who does it.
Separating bikeshedding from refusals/rejections definitely has merit though, especially for the person making the final decision. Best Regards, Jim Fasarakis Hilliard On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 2:08 PM Mark Shannon <m...@hotpy.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to propose the "Anti-PEP". > > As I'm sure you've all noticed, contentious PEPs like 572, and now 622, > generate a lot of email discussion. > It's easy to feel that people's opinions are being dismissed and that > legitimate criticisms aren't being heard. > Conversely, PEP authors may feel they are being bombarded with > criticism, which can be overwhelming. > > The acceptance, or rejection, of a PEP should be a cool technical > decision. Whilst there may be considerations of aesthetics and usability > that make it difficult to objective, the goal should be to choose what > is best for the language in the long term. > > When deciding on PEP 484, I had to decide between a formally written PEP > on one hand, and a mass of emails and informal polls I had done at > conferences, on the other. > I hope I made the right decision. > > Whether the ultimate decision is made by the steering committee or by a > PEP delegate, it is hard to make a decision between the pros and cons, > when the pros are in a single formal document and the cons are scattered > across the internet. > > An Anti-PEP is a way to ensure that those opposed to a PEP can be heard > and, if possible, have a coherent voice. > Hopefully, it would also make things a lot less stressful for PEP authors. > > > The Anti-PEP > ------------ > > The Anti-PEP is a single document that describes why a particular PEP > should be rejected. > > An Anti-PEP is not a counter PEP. A counter PEP suggests an alternative > solution to the same problem and will often share the same motivation as > the original PEP. An Anti-PEP would usually reject the motivation or > rationale, either as insufficient or as incorrect. > > An example of a counter PEP is 576, which was a counter to 575. The > motivation was the same, but means proposed was quite different. As a > result of the ensuing to and fro, we ended up with PEP 590, which was a > clear improvement. > > I don't have an example of an Anti-PEP. > > We could start with PEP 611, https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0611/. > There were many criticisms of it on this mailing list, and I can promise > the PEP author won't be upset by an Anti-PEP :) > Anyone care to volunteer? > > Cheers, > Mark. > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/JVKWNZEDRXR2IF3KM2JNUF6WT7WETUVK/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/KKU6JNU2F7XXEZ6QSOOUJZ6SYMOREMRF/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
