Re: [python-committers] Timeline to vote for a governance PEP

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Paul Moore  wrote:
> As one example of my confusion here,
> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-8016/ is currently a 404.

Sorry about that – there's a thread here with background:

https://discuss.python.org/t/working-discussion-for-pep-8016-the-boringest-possible-steering-council-model/333

And the PR to add it is here:
https://github.com/python/peps/pull/827

So it should be available on python.org soon.

-n

-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Re: [python-committers] If you care about the voting method, please vote ; -)

[Brett Cannon]

Everyone who has spoken up on my behalf is right: I personally never viewed
the poll as binding. When I first suggested doing the poll my schedule
outline included a day to discuss the results as never considered it
something that was an objective thing to follow (I think we ended up with
about two days in the end as no one else volunteered to update the PEP
faster than me getting to it on Friday). Had it been close I would never
have suggested changing the PEP to help keep this discussion to a minimum
(which is why I personally pushed back any changes to the PEP to begin
with).

But as Donald points out below, the results were very clearly in
Condorcet's favour no matter how you wanted to measure things, whether it
was by the poll or "reading the room" based on how people seemed to be
reacting to the IRV selection to begin with. Since finding a voting system
that everyone is happy with appears impossible we had to choose something,
and with a clear preference from those that participating in the process I
decided to update the PEP -- with a prior announcement on that thread that
I was going to in order to provide people time to object -- to represent
what seemed like the closest thing we came to consensus to.

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 18:04, Donald Stufft  wrote:

>
>
> > On Nov 2, 2018, at 8:22 PM, Chris Jerdonek 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 5:09 PM Tim Peters  wrote:
> >>
> >> [Chris Jerdonek ]
> >>> It would have been nice to know beforehand if the results of the poll
> >>> were going to change the PEP.
> >>
> >> Don't look at me ;-)  Like I said, "I'm not in charge of anything",
> >> and I had no input in changing PEP 8001 beyond contributing to the
> >> message thread, same as everyone else.
> >
> > My reply was to Brett and not to you. If I had known the poll was
> > going to be binding, I could have made an effort to participate in the
> > discussion and try to sway people. As it was, the discussion was
> > started and dominated by people who were against IRV. They are the
> > most motivated to change things, and they're also the ones most
> > motivated to participate in the poll. I couldn't afford to participate
> > in such a discussion otherwise, as I said in the discussion. There are
> > already 98 messages -- many of which are lengthy -- not to mention
> > messages in other threads. It would take a lot of time and emotional
> > energy to engage in such a discussion.
> >
> > --Chris
> >
>
>
> I don’t believe the poll *was* binding, certainly I suspect that if the
> results of the poll had been say, tied instead of a blowout that even if
> Condorcet had barely won out, that the PEP would not have changed (other
> than to update that while there were other methods, discussion around them
> compared to IRV was inconclusive). Rather I think that the poll and the
> entire discussion was weighed, both of which provide different signals
> (discussion tends to overweight people who are more passionate, whereas the
> poll takes very little effort to participate in, but tends to overweight
> people who don’t really care).
>
> Honestly, I’m not sure what you thought the point of the discussion was if
> not to advocate that the PEP itself should change and thus a possible
> outcome of that was that the PEP would change. Why else would that
> discussion exist? I can sympathize with being unable to participate due to
> time constraints, but we also have to weigh in realities like we’re never
> going to be able to structure such a discussion such that 100% of people
> are able and willing to participate in it, the best you can do is try to
> structure it to give everyone as much chance as possible.
>
> The selection of a voting mechanism ended up going through these layers:
>
> 1. In person discussion at an event in the West Coast USA.
> 2. Online discussion largely in discourse, but slightly on
> python-committers as well.
> 3. An online poll on discourse, with notification to python-committers.
>
> Of those, (1) selected IRV and while I was not there, I get the send that
> there wasn’t a strong preference for IRV in that meeting, rather it was
> better than plurality and something the attendees were familiar with. (2)
> seemed to me (and I may be biased) to heavily weight towards a “Anything
> but Plurality or IRV” direction, and (3) ultimately confirmed that.
>
> While not everyone might not have gotten to have their voice heard, the
> discussion and the poll was accessible to any committer who could
> participate via online (which I suspect is most of them) with the barest
> amount of investment being to vote in the poll and otherwise ignore the
> discussion.
>
> I would also point out that while the poll itself was run via the Approval
> voting method [1], looking at the numbers it’s not hard to come to the
> conclusion that it’s hard to suggest that the *method* used by the poll
> gives us invalid results. For instance, if we had instead run the poll
> using IRV instead of Approval *and* we assu

Re: [python-committers] Timeline to vote for a governance PEP

[Brett Cannon]

On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 10:53, Paul Moore  wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 15:25, Steve Dower  wrote:
> > For example, right now, I'm leaning towards 8013, 8010, 8016, 8011,
> > 8012, 8015, 8014. But since some are still in flux (particularly 8016),
> > that could change. And my core rationale is basically how likely we are
> > to be able to fill the roles created by the model.
>
> As one example of my confusion here,
> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-8016/ is currently a 404. So where
> are you seeing something you can express a preference on? Presumably
> you're looking at the raw data in github?
>
> I have limited time, and I feel like we were promised a deadline after
> which we could review what was being proposed, and discuss the
> proposals in a public forum. After that, there would be a vote. But at
> this point in time, I'm confused about:
>
> 1. When the proposals will be finalised and published.
>

We were hoping by now already, but unfortunately the voting discussion has
gone on longer than I think anyone planned for.


> 2. Where the discussion(s) will be taking place.
>

Discourse and here.


>
> PEP 8001 says that the vote will take place in the 2 weeks between 16
> Nov and 30 Nov. PEP 8000 states that the following proposals exist:
>
> PEP 8010 - The BDFL Governance Model
> PEP 8011 - Python Governance Model Lead by Trio of Pythonistas
> PEP 8012 - The Community Governance Model
> PEP 8013 - The External Governance Model
> PEP 8014 - The Commons Governance Model
> PEP 8015 - Organization of the Python community
>
> but claims that 8010 and 8012 are placeholders - looking at the PEPs
> themselves, this seems to be untrue.
>

It's outdated. I think Barry just hasn't thought of updating it yet since
it's just an index into the 801X PEPs which you can view in the PEP index
directly without any special background info (I know I personally forgot
that PEP 8000 even listed the various PEPs).


>
> I'd like to spend some time reviewing the proposals and understanding
> the options we're being asked to vote on, but I do *not* want to waste
> time reviewing proposals that are still in flux. How do I know when I
> can do that?


I think the original point to this thread was to figure that out. My
assumption is that if we don't change dates then all 801X PEPs will
forcibly go into "final" status and not be updated short of spelling
mistakes or clarifications that were simply overlooked -- i.e. no semantic
changes -- on November 15.


> And where do I go to see what *other* people are saying
> about the relative merits of the proposals? The topics on Discourse
> seem to be limited to one proposal at a time - so I'm assuming they
> are thrashing out details (that I don't really care about - I don't
> have enough of a "high level" feel yet to want to get into that level
> of detail).
>

Correct. No grand discussion has occurred as all the discussion has been
around getting the various PEPs to a final state that the proposers were
happy with.


>
> I guess I am assuming here that a topic titled "PEP 8013: The External
> Council Governance Model" is just about PEP 8013, and doesn't include
> digressions and off-topic subthreads (such as "this is why I prefer
> PEP xxx over PEP 8013"). I suppose I'm basing that on the fact that
> the Discourse users are making a point that one of the advantages of
> Discourse is that threads don't ramble like mailing lists do. In
> reality, I'm suspicious - it seems to me that human nature is such
> that discussions *do* digress, and go off topic. But again it's about
> time - if Discourse is just as much a bunch of wide ranging
> discussions as the mailing list is, I don't have time to follow all of
> Discourse as well as all of the lists I follow, and I don't have the
> time to learn how to manage and prioritise on Discourse (or at least,
> whatever time I do have that I could use for that, I'd rather use to
> better understand the governance proposals, as those are more
> important!) In the end, I accept that "I don't have enough time to do
> a good job" is something I have to accept and decide whether I abstain
> from the vote, or skim and vote as best I can based on that. That's
> something I can't expect help in deciding - but a little more clarity
> on what's happening with the process would make it a lot easier for me
> to make that decision myself.
>

So far people have been good about keeping Discourse on-topic. There is
also the benefit of being able to forcibly split a thread when it starts to
go off-topic (versus what happened here when the thread went off-topic and
the only way to stop that is to start a new email thread and hope people
pick up on the fact that it split off).


>
> Anyhow, this is probably a bit off-topic again.


Yes, but that's a drawback to mailing lists in my opinion and it's hard to
avoid. :)

-Brett


> I don't know whether
> anyone thinks I'm offering anything new here - I feel like I'm
> explaining my concerns from another perspective

Re: [python-committers] Timeline to vote for a governance PEP

[Barry Warsaw]

On Nov 5, 2018, at 11:10, Brett Cannon  wrote:

> It's outdated. I think Barry just hasn't thought of updating it yet since 
> it's just an index into the 801X PEPs which you can view in the PEP index 
> directly without any special background info (I know I personally forgot that 
> PEP 8000 even listed the various PEPs).

I just updated the PEP 8010 description in PEP 8000.

-Barry



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Re: [python-committers] Timeline to vote for a governance PEP

[Paul Moore]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 19:11, Brett Cannon  wrote:

>> Anyhow, this is probably a bit off-topic again.
>
> Yes, but that's a drawback to mailing lists in my opinion and it's hard to 
> avoid. :)

I did consider what I would have done on Discourse, and came to the
conclusion that I would have done exactly the same - I've no idea how
Discourse would help with a "here's some things I thought of that I
felt needed saying while reading this thread" post. Obviously I could
move the reply to a new topic, but I could just as easily have changed
the subject in the mailing list. So without meaning to ignore your
smiley, I don't think it's really a fault with mailing lists, just
with how people discuss things ;-)

Paul
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Re: [python-committers] Timeline to vote for a governance PEP

[Paul Moore]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 19:11, Brett Cannon  wrote:
>> I'd like to spend some time reviewing the proposals and understanding
>> the options we're being asked to vote on, but I do *not* want to waste
>> time reviewing proposals that are still in flux. How do I know when I
>> can do that?
>
> I think the original point to this thread was to figure that out. My 
> assumption is that if we don't change dates then all 801X PEPs will forcibly 
> go into "final" status and not be updated short of spelling mistakes or 
> clarifications that were simply overlooked -- i.e. no semantic changes -- on 
> November 15.

Hmm, so voting opens immediately after the PEPs are finalised? No
discussion/debate period before that? Maybe I misunderstood, I'd
assumed that this would be more similar to an election process, with a
period of canvassing support and/or debating the strengths and
weaknesses of the proposals, leading up to a vote.

OK. I can't say I *like* that, but if that's what's happening then
that probably explains some of my confusion.
Paul
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Re: [python-committers] Timeline to vote for a governance PEP

[Brett Cannon]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 11:22, Paul Moore  wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 19:11, Brett Cannon  wrote:
>
> >> Anyhow, this is probably a bit off-topic again.
> >
> > Yes, but that's a drawback to mailing lists in my opinion and it's hard
> to avoid. :)
>
> I did consider what I would have done on Discourse, and came to the
> conclusion that I would have done exactly the same - I've no idea how
> Discourse would help with a "here's some things I thought of that I
> felt needed saying while reading this thread" post. Obviously I could
> move the reply to a new topic, but I could just as easily have changed
> the subject in the mailing list. So without meaning to ignore your
> smiley, I don't think it's really a fault with mailing lists, just
> with how people discuss things ;-)
>

In Discourse an admin could have selected every post related to "Discourse
versus Mailing Lists" and then created a new topic. Here, I can't do that,
and people who choose to keep replying to this thread on this topic (like I
am now :) will be accidentally, directly working against keeping the
conversation on-topic. So my comment was more general to this overall
thread than you specifically, Paul.
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Re: [python-committers] Timeline to vote for a governance PEP

[Donald Stufft]

> On Nov 5, 2018, at 2:29 PM, Paul Moore  wrote:
> 
> Hmm, so voting opens immediately after the PEPs are finalised? No
> discussion/debate period before that? Maybe I misunderstood, I'd
> assumed that this would be more similar to an election process, with a
> period of canvassing support and/or debating the strengths and
> weaknesses of the proposals, leading up to a vote.


I don’t think there is anything stopping people from doing that right now (and 
honestly, right now seems like the *right* time to do that if it’s going to 
happen, so that the proposals can evolve based on any discussion that comes out 
of that). Waiting until the proposals are set in stone seems like a less useful 
implementation of that idea.

I suspect the reason that people aren’t doing that, is just nobody has started 
that discussion for one reason or another.___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Re: [python-committers] Timeline to vote for a governance PEP

[Brett Cannon]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 11:29, Paul Moore  wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 19:11, Brett Cannon  wrote:
> >> I'd like to spend some time reviewing the proposals and understanding
> >> the options we're being asked to vote on, but I do *not* want to waste
> >> time reviewing proposals that are still in flux. How do I know when I
> >> can do that?
> >
> > I think the original point to this thread was to figure that out. My
> assumption is that if we don't change dates then all 801X PEPs will
> forcibly go into "final" status and not be updated short of spelling
> mistakes or clarifications that were simply overlooked -- i.e. no semantic
> changes -- on November 15.
>
> Hmm, so voting opens immediately after the PEPs are finalised? No
> discussion/debate period before that?


You get 2 weeks of that since the vote is open that long (as currently
planned). I'm not sure if the UK has this, but think of it like voting by
mail. People are still discussing stuff while you can mail in your vote, so
if you aren't ready to cast your vote until the last day then you can wait
while those of us who are ready Day 1 can vote early.


> Maybe I misunderstood, I'd
> assumed that this would be more similar to an election process, with a
> period of canvassing support and/or debating the strengths and
> weaknesses of the proposals, leading up to a vote.
>

But there's also no election _day_ like you might be used to, but instead
an election _pair of weeks_. Do you really want to have threads like this
for more than two weeks anyway? ;)


>
> OK. I can't say I *like* that, but if that's what's happening then
> that probably explains some of my confusion.
>

Hopefully the above explanation assuages your worries, otherwise I don't
understand your worries.
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Re: [python-committers] Timeline to vote for a governance PEP

[Tim Peters]

[Paul Moore ]
> I did consider what I would have done on Discourse, and came to the
> conclusion that I would have done exactly the same - I've no idea how
> Discourse would help with a "here's some things I thought of that I
> felt needed saying while reading this thread" post.

It wouldn't, and nobody would really care.  It's when a technically
off-topic sub-thread _grows_ that it becomes "a problem".  Sometimes
you just can't gauge interest in whether it will without making a
start.  If people pile on, the very lack of a fully-threaded view in
Discourse is what _drives_ people to split it off to a new "category"
of its own   Which is a better outcome for everyone!  If you do care
about the new category, it has its own space wholly dedicated to it.
If you don't care, don't follow it, and you'll never even know that
it's still going on.

> Obviously I could move the reply to a new topic, but I could just as
> easily have changed the subject in the mailing list.

But people don't.  If this sub-thread keeps going on, someone
eventually _will_ change the Subject line, and then you need "clever"
software to show you that it's still the same sub-thread, and it keeps
getting sent to everyone on the "python-committers" list whether they
want it or not.

> So without meaning to ignore your smiley, I don't think it's really a fault 
> with
> mailing lists, just with how people discuss things ;-)

In the absence of trying it for yourself, you could, e.g., look for
what the people who designed the system had in mind.  The lack of a
fully threaded view in Discourse was 100% intentional, not due to,
e.g., laziness, or lack of time or skill.

Here's a start:

https://blog.codinghorror.com/web-discussions-flat-by-design/

I'm not necessarily endorsing those views, but I did take the time to
try to find out _why_ they did what they did.  It wasn't capricious.
There are things I do and don't like about Discourse, but _which_
things are still changing for me over time ;-)
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Re: [python-committers] Timeline to vote for a governance PEP

[Paul Moore]

I'm going to quote multiple people here and respond to various
comments at once. It's way harder doing so than it would have been in
Discourse, so I'm sort of proving that for myself (but having said
that, I was already aware of, and fine with, the idea that Discourse
does stuff like this better - it's simply that I don't have the time
right now to learn a new bit of software and adapt my workflow to its
approach).

On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 19:34, Donald Stufft  wrote:
> I don’t think there is anything stopping people from doing that right now 
> (and honestly, right now seems like the *right* time to do that if it’s going 
> to happen, so that the proposals can evolve based on any discussion that 
> comes out of that). Waiting until the proposals are set in stone seems like a 
> less useful implementation of that idea.

Well, in my case I specifically don't want to end up commenting on
things that have changed and my understanding is out of date. That's a
common problem with PEP discussions, and one that I don't feel would
be helpful here. But agreed, if you see it as "wait until things are
set in stone", it sounds worse. Seeing it as "waiting until things are
stable" sounds more reasonable (at least to me) while still meaning
essentially the same ;-)

> I suspect the reason that people aren’t doing that, is just nobody has 
> started that discussion for one reason or another.

I suspect that what those reasons are would be interesting. I wonder
how high "because I didn't think the proposal was finished yet" would
come? It's what's stopping me (although I tend to comment on threads
started by others more than starting my own, so I'm not a good
example),

On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 19:37, Brett Cannon  wrote:
> Hopefully the above explanation assuages your worries, otherwise I don't 
> understand your worries.

To an extent, yes. My main worry is that there won't *be* the sort of
discussion I'm hoping for. I like to have a sense of what the broad
consensus is on a proposal before making my own final decision, and at
the moment there's no discussion that I've seen that gives me that
sort of sense. If that remains the case over the 2 week voting period,
it'll be a little late by that point. And it's not obvious to me how I
could *start* such a discussion - "so how are people going to vote?"
isn't a particularly subtle opening. This tends to be "solved" (in
some sense) in political debates by the various parties trying to
persuade people to vote for them. That's not happening here, and I
think I'm just finding that unnerving (because the whole process has a
feel of a political debate to me).

Anyhow, I guess it's just me expecting something from the process that
it's not. And that's for me to deal with.

On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 19:49, Tim Peters  wrote:
> In the absence of trying it for yourself, you could, e.g., look for
> what the people who designed the system had in mind.  The lack of a
> fully threaded view in Discourse was 100% intentional, not due to,
> e.g., laziness, or lack of time or skill.
>
> Here's a start:
>
> https://blog.codinghorror.com/web-discussions-flat-by-design/
>
> I'm not necessarily endorsing those views, but I did take the time to
> try to find out _why_ they did what they did.  It wasn't capricious.
> There are things I do and don't like about Discourse, but _which_
> things are still changing for me over time ;-)

Thanks, Tim. That link is definitely something I'll read up on. My
impression has always been that every part of Discourse's design was
carefully thought through, but I hadn't seen any specifics before. As
I say above, though, it's not that I don't intend to try Discourse
(and indeed, I know there are many things I expect to like about it) -
it's simply that I don't have time right now. I'm twitchy about that
fact because I *want* to follow the discussions on the governance
issues, but I haven't worked out an effective way to do so with the
time I have available right now.

(No need for replies to any of the above. I appreciate all of the
comments and anything I'm still concerned about is something I'll have
to work out for myself).

Paul
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Re: [python-committers] Timeline to vote for a governance PEP

[Victor Stinner]

Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 10:39, Antoine Pitrou  a écrit :
> > I'm unhappy with the "[] Further discussion" choice. We have a
> > governance crisis. Many people would like to see it resolved as soon
> > as possible, I don't see the ability to vote for "[] Further
> > discussion" as a way to resolve this crisis.
>
> Why are you worried?  If many people would like to see the "crisis" (I
> would call it a void) resolved early, then probably "Further discussion"
> won't win.  So how is its presence a problem?

PEPs cannot be approved since July. It seems like we will not be able
to approve PEPs before January, even if a governance PEP is approved
and a new council/committee/whatever is elected.

There was a discussion abouge BDFL-delegate for Jeroen Demeyer's PEP
580 which has been somehow blocked (sorry, I didn't follow closely the
discussion, so I'm not sure of the outcome).

I would prefer the situation to be unblocked as soon as possible to
unblock Python 3.8. Otherwise, Python 3.8 will be the release of the
governance crisis with no large new features.

I know that at least two core developers have pending PEPs that they
didn't publish because there is nobody to approve PEPs.

Victor
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[python-committers] IMPORTANT: Missing Email Addresses for Governance Election Voter Roll

[Donald Stufft]

We need a list of core developers email addresses to send ballot emails to. 
Since PEP 8001 states that we’re using inclusion in the ``python-core`` team on 
GitHub as the list of “registered voters”, I wrote up a quick script that 
compiled a list of GitHub usernames in that team *today* and any public email 
address on their GitHub profile if there is one.

That is located at https://github.com/python/voters 
 (specifically the 
2018-11-16-governance-election.csv file), which is a private repository.

Please everyone take a moment to find your GitHub username in that file (it’s 
in alphabetical order) and ensure that the email address there is a good email 
for you to send your ballot to. If it’s wrong or missing, update the CSV file 
(there is a .voters.csv file that will taken into effect for any future voter 
rolls we may generate from this script).

If you’re not a member of the python-core team on Github and you want to 
participate in the vote, please ask to be added to that team, then add yourself 
to the 2018-11-16-governance-election.csv file.

We particularly need the following people (GitHub usernames) to go fill in 
their email addresses, as we do not currently have an email address for them, 
and without an email address, we cannot send you a ballot.

- [ ] @abalkin
- [ ] @akuchling
- [ ] @aleaxit
- [ ] @amauryfa
- [ ] @applio
- [ ] @avassalotti
- [ ] @brettcannon
- [ ] @doerwalter
- [ ] @doko42
- [ ] @eliben
- [ ] @ericsnowcurrently
- [ ] @ericvsmith
- [ ] @ezio-melotti
- [ ] @facundobatista
- [ ] @ilevkivskyi
- [ ] @jcea
- [ ] @jeremyhylton
- [ ] @larryhastings
- [ ] @lisroach
- [ ] @malemburg
- [ ] @Mariatta
- [ ] @markshannon
- [ ] @methane
- [ ] @mhammond
- [ ] @nascheme
- [ ] @ncoghlan
- [ ] @ned-deily
- [ ] @pfmoore
- [ ] @pitrou
- [ ] @pjenvey
- [ ] @rbtcollins
- [ ] @rhettinger
- [ ] @sandrotosi
- [ ] @serhiy-storchaka
- [ ] @sjoerdmullender
- [ ] @skrah
- [ ] @stevendaprano
- [ ] @taleinat
- [ ] @vadmium
- [ ] @willingc

This list of people is also available on Github at 
https://github.com/python/voters/issues/1 
 (primarily so people would get a 
GitHub notification as well).

Thanks!


___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Re: [python-committers] Timeline to vote for a governance PEP

[Antoine Pitrou]

Le 05/11/2018 à 23:08, Victor Stinner a écrit :
> Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 10:39, Antoine Pitrou  a écrit :
>>> I'm unhappy with the "[] Further discussion" choice. We have a
>>> governance crisis. Many people would like to see it resolved as soon
>>> as possible, I don't see the ability to vote for "[] Further
>>> discussion" as a way to resolve this crisis.
>>
>> Why are you worried?  If many people would like to see the "crisis" (I
>> would call it a void) resolved early, then probably "Further discussion"
>> won't win.  So how is its presence a problem?
> 
> PEPs cannot be approved since July.

Let me repeat the question: if "Further discussion" has no chance of
winning, why are you bothered by its presence?

Regards

Antoine.
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

[python-committers] Comparison of the 7 governance PEPs

[Victor Stinner]

Hi Paul,

Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 11:55, Paul Moore  a écrit :
> Currently, I feel like my only option is to abstain and hope - I don't
> have the time (or knowledge) to review, understand and assess the
> proposals well enough to make an informed vote, but I have no way of
> assessing the "expert opinions" of those who do, to allow me to make a
> broad judgement. Frankly, I feel pretty disenfranchised by the process
> at the moment.

I wrote a comparison and summary of the 7 governance PEPs for you :-)

https://discuss.python.org/t/comparison-of-the-7-governance-peps/392

WARNING: It is not always easy to extract the information and
summarize it, so it’s likely that I made mistakes.

Two weeks ago (October 24), Jake Edge wrote "Picking a governance
model for Python" on LWN: https://lwn.net/Articles/769178/ I didn't
publish the link earlier, since previously you required to have a LWN
account to read it (I do!).

Victor
___
python-committers mailing list
python-committers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/