Guido van Rossum wrote: >> When PEP 3147 was accepted, I had a few folks ask that this be recorded in >> the >> PEP by including a link to the BDFL pronouncement email. I realized that >> there's no formal way to express this in a PEP, and many PEPs in fact don't >> record more than the fact that it was accepted. I'd like to propose >> officially adding an Accepted: header which should include a URL to the email >> or other web resource where the PEP is accepted. I've come as close as >> possible to this (without modifying the supporting scripts or PEP 1) in PEP >> 3147: >> >> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3147/ >> >> I'd be willing to update things if there are no objections. > > I'd rather not build a single point of failure into the process. > Instead of insisting on BDFL pronouncement, the community should > switch do something like "last call for objections." There should also > be a timeline so that unproductive discussion can't be dragged on > forever.
I believe the more important part of Barry's suggested change here is requiring a link to the archived message (usually from python-dev) where the PEP was accepted (be it directly by you as BDFL, or by consensus from a "sufficient" number of core developers). This will likely also help with reminding people to announce on python-dev when PEPs are accepted by consensus (or by you) somewhere like PyCon or a sprint. >> I would not mandate that we go back and update all previous PEPs for either >> of >> these ideas. We'd adopt them moving forward and allow anyone who's motivated >> to backfill information opportunistically. > > SGTM. +1 to both ideas from me, too. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
