"to put it succinctly" -- IMO we shouldn't discuss features without giving thought to their implementation.
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Brendan Barnwell <brenb...@brenbarn.net> wrote: > On 2017-06-23 09:49, Brett Cannon wrote: > >> Everyone, please be upfront when proposing any ideas if you refuse to >> implement your own idea yourself. It's implicit that if you have an idea >> to discuss here that you are serious enough about it to see it happen, >> so if that's not the case then do say so in your first email (obviously >> if your circumstances change during the discussion then that's >> understandable). Otherwise people will spend what little spare time they >> have helping you think through your idea, and then find out that the >> discussion will more than likely end up leading to no change because the >> most motivated person behind the discussion isn't motivated enough to >> actually enact the change. >> >> And if you lack knowledge in how to implement the idea or a certain area >> of expertise, please be upfront about that as well. We have had >> instances here where ideas have gone as far as PEPs to only find out the >> OP didn't know C which was a critical requirement to implementing the >> idea, and so the idea just fell to the wayside and hasn't gone anywhere. >> It's totally reasonable to ask for help, but once again, please be >> upfront that you will need it to have any chance of seeing your idea >> come to fruition. >> >> To be perfectly frank, I personally find it misleading to not be told >> upfront that you know you will need help (if you learn later because you >> didn't know e.g. C would be required, that's different, but once you do >> learn then once again be upfront about it). Otherwise I personally feel >> like I was tricked into a discussion under false pretenses that the OP >> was motivated enough to put the effort in to see their idea come to be. >> Had I known to begin with that no one was actually stepping forward to >> make this change happen I would have skipped the thread and spent the >> time I put in following the discussion into something more productive >> like reviewing a pull request. >> > > That is a reasonable position, but I think if that's really how > this list is supposed to work then it'd be good to state those requirements > more explicitly in the list description. Right now the description ( > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas) just says the list > is for "discussion of speculative language ideas for Python". There is no > hint that any particular technical qualifications are required other than > having used Python enough to have an idea about how to improve it. I also > don't think such a requirement is obvious even from reading the list > traffic (since I've rarely seen anyone explicitly state their inability to > implement, as you suggest, although it does sometimes come up later, as in > this case). No doubt this leads to the occasional cockamamie proposal but > I think it also allows discussion of useful ideas that otherwise might > never be raised. Also, the description does mention that at some point > ideas might get moved on to python-dev; although it's not explicit about > how this works, I think that creates a vague impression that thinking about > how or whether you can implement an idea might be something for a later > stage. > > That said, I don't personally agree with your position here. My > impression of discussion on this list is that a good deal of it doesn't > really have to do with implementation at all. It has to do with the > proposal itself in terms of how it would feel to use it, hashing out what > its semantics would be, what the benefits would be for code readability, > what confusion it might create etc. --- in short, discussion from the > perspective of people who USE Python, not people who implement Python. I > think that's good discussion to have even if the proposal eventually stalls > because no one with the right skills has the time or inclination to > implement it. It would be a shame for all such discussion to get nipped in > the bud just because the person with the original proposal doesn't know C > or whatever. Also, because, as you say, some people don't know what would > be needed to implement their ideas, requiring this kind of disclosure might > perversely muffle discussion from people who know enough to know they don't > know how to implement their idea, while still allowing all the ideas from > people who don't even know whether they know how to implement their idea > --- and the latter are probably more likely to fall into the cockamamie > category. > > I realize you're not proposing that all such discussion be stopped > entirely, just that it be tagged as I-can't-implement-this-myself at the > outset. However, your last paragraph suggests to me that the effect might > be similar. You seem to be saying that (some of) those who do know how to > implement stuff would like to be able to ignore discussion from anyone who > doesn't know how to implement stuff. That's certainly anyone's > prerogative, but I think it would be a shame if this resulted in a > bifurcation of the list in which ideas can't reach the attention of people > who could implement them unless they're proposed by someone who could do so > themselves. To me, that would somewhat blur the distinction between > python-ideas and python-dev, and potentially chill discussion of > "mid-level" ideas proposed by people who know enough to have a potentially > useful idea, but not enough to bring it to fruition. We presumably don't > want a situation where a person with some amount of knowledge thinks "This > might be a good idea. . . but I don't know how to implement it, so if I > bring it up on the list the more knowledgeable people will ignore it, oh > well, I guess I won't" --- while a person with no knowledge blithely jumps > in with "Golly everyone I have this great idea!" (I don't mean to say that > is directly what you're proposing, but it is the evolution that came to my > mind when I read your comment.) > > So to put it succinctly, as someone who's found discussion on this > list interesting and valuable, I think there is value in having discussion > about "what would Python be like if this idea were implemented" even if we > never get very far with "how would we implement this idea in Python". And > I would find it unfortunate if discussion of the former were prematurely > restricted by worries about the latter. > > -- > Brendan Barnwell > "Do not follow where the path may lead. Go, instead, where there is no > path, and leave a trail." > --author unknown > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
