Re: [Python-ideas] be upfront if you aren't willing to implement your own idea

[Brett Cannon]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 at 13:10 Paul Moore  wrote:

> On 23 June 2017 at 19:28, Brendan Barnwell  wrote:
> > 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.
>
> No-one is proposing otherwise, just that people are open when starting
> a discussion as to whether they anticipate being able to follow
> through with an implementation if the idea meets with approval, or if
> they are simply making a suggestion that they hope someone else will
> take up. That's not too much to ask, nor does it in any way stifle
> reasonable discussion (it may discourage people who want to
> *deliberately* give the impression that they will do the work, but
> actually have no intention of doing so - but I hope there's no-one
> like that here and if there were, I'm happy with discouraging them).
>
> So I'm +1 on Brett's request.


+1 to what Paul and Guido said: people are welcome to have hypothetical
discussions here as long as they are upfront that it is hypothetical, but I
personally choose to ignore all discussions that don't involve discussing
the implementation of said idea (hence why learning that at the end is
frustrating for those of us who are trying to be pragmatic with our time).
Sorry if that wasn't clear enough in my original email where the
distinction between "Brett as list admin" and "Brett as list participant"
started and ended.
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Re: [Python-ideas] be upfront if you aren't willing to implement your own idea

[Carl Smith]

+1

I'm quite active in the CoffeeScript community, but am also on a ton of
medication that ultimately means I won't implement much of what I suggest
doing, but the core devs understand the situation well enough to respond
accordingly.

It really does help when people know what they can reasonably expect from
others, and it doesn't take much to let them know. None of this has ever
prevented me from being involved. It just prevents me from wasting other
people's time. -- Carl


-- Carl Smith
carl.in...@gmail.com

On 23 June 2017 at 21:09, Paul Moore  wrote:

> On 23 June 2017 at 19:28, Brendan Barnwell  wrote:
> > 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.
>
> No-one is proposing otherwise, just that people are open when starting
> a discussion as to whether they anticipate being able to follow
> through with an implementation if the idea meets with approval, or if
> they are simply making a suggestion that they hope someone else will
> take up. That's not too much to ask, nor does it in any way stifle
> reasonable discussion (it may discourage people who want to
> *deliberately* give the impression that they will do the work, but
> actually have no intention of doing so - but I hope there's no-one
> like that here and if there were, I'm happy with discouraging them).
>
> So I'm +1 on Brett's request.
> Paul
> ___
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

Re: [Python-ideas] be upfront if you aren't willing to implement your own idea

[Guido van Rossum]

"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 
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