Brett Cannon writes: > I agree, and that's what the Rejected Ideas section is supposed to > capture.
Perhaps there could be guidance, in documentation (and if appropriate from the PEP-Delegate or the Steering Council), that the PEP proponent collaborate with a leading opponent, critic, and/or undecided party on the Rejected Ideas section? It shouldn't be presented as a big deal for fairness (PEPs are supposed to be advocacy documents), but rather offloading some of the work on an interested party whose specific interest is in the opposition side of the discussion. Thus it would contribute to a more complete summary of the discussion. As long as I'm here, -1 on Anti-PEPs as such. I agree with the reasons given by others. I also feel that although Rationale and Rejected Ideas sections tend to be extremely compressed compared to the mailing list discussions, they usually do reflect the essentials of those discussions. At least in cases where I personally felt the PEPs were questionable ideas at the time.[1] In particular, IMO Rationale need not rebut every objection, but must present a *sufficient* case for implementation, including overcoming concrete objections (specific design flaws and the like). In cases where the go-no-go decision came down to the wire, the PEP-Delegate and Steering Council should ensure that the Rationale section should reflect their concerns about balancing interests as well. Steve Footnotes: [1] The fact is that I'm more likely to carefully read a PEP that I find questionable than one that I agree with from the get-go. YMMV. _______________________________________________ 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/YBEPAG6GUOY7E5FF7O2FJP2SA6OPXPMP/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
