> * +1: you like the PEP
> * -1: you dislike the PEP
> * 0: you are not sure if you like it or not, or you have no opinon
> * don't reply to this poll :-)
+1
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/
[Victor Stinner ]
> I'm not sure that the discussion on python-dev was really efficient (I
> didn't follow the discussion on python-ideas). It seems like many
> people said the same thing.
Only hundreds of times ;-)
> I'm not sure that arguments of the supporters of the PEP have been
> heard. Li
+1
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Victor Stinner ]
> ...
> In short, the feature commit + fix the commit became a single commit :-)
>
I'd give a lot of weight to that - if I cared about counting commits at
all, which I don't ;-)
I just recently learned enough about git and github to get my feet wet
again. My first patch was to
[Antoine Pitrou]
> > That might be a minority view, but I don't think anyone except Guido
> > would be legitimate as a Python BDFL. Not even Tim or Barry ;-)
A majority view is probably an incorrect view anyway.
If Barry had been BDFL all along, only features useful to Mailman would
have gotte
[Larry Hastings]
...
>
>- However, once appointed, Elders are appointed is "for life". The
>only way to remove one would be for them to voluntarily step down--there
>would be no mechanism to remove one from office. (Perhaps this is too
>strong--perhaps one could be removed by a u
[Tim]
> > Or, short of that, by an approval vote of the Fellows (whatever it is we
> call for-real PSF members these days).
>
[Ethan Furman]
> Forgive my ignorance, but how does one become a PSF member?
That depends on which year you ask ;-) The current rules are here:
https://www.pytho
[Nathaniel Smith ]
> That's not really true -- life expectancy *at birth* was ~35 years,
> but mostly because so many people died as infants/children. If you
> survived long enough to get nominated for a judgeship, then by that
> point your life expectancy wasn't too different from what we're used
[Tim]
> So: term limits! Say, 12 years. If there are 3 Elders, replace one
> every 12/3 = 4 years. At the start we can use the `secrets` module to pick
> which Elders get the first 4, 8, and 12-year terms ;-)
>
> Fresh blood is a good thing in all areas.
>
>
[Larry]
> Can I get you to clarif
[Nathaniel Smith]
> ...
> Well, sure, we can try to come up with something to slot into the
> space Guido is leaving, while keeping everything else the same, that's
> one option.
There are already differences between "a Guido" and what Larry suggested.
> But I doubt it's the best one.
Then p
[Tim]
> > If there are 3 Elders [snip]
>
[Łukasz Langa]
> It looks like the number 3 is popular in this context. What makes it so
> attractive?
>
Likely because it was the first specific non-insane number someone
mentioned. It helps to be concrete, but I don't know that anyone is wedded
to 3.
[Tim]
> If they tied, that's fine too. Ties favor the status quo (same as if the
>> proposed change had been rejected). For that reason, I'm not even wedded
>> to an odd number.
>>
>
[Brett Cannon]
> That's a good point. Since this is typically going to be a yes/no question
> instead of an A/B
[Chris Jerdonek]
> I don’t think we should assume that a stalemate would be okay in all
> cases. There may be cases in which a decision has to be made (e.g. if
> nothing changes, bad things will happen). I think one of the most important
> roles a BDFL serves is to provide a mechanism of last reso
[Tim]
> > But I'm not sure it's fully appreciated just how active Guido has been
> > in those at times. The "accepted/rejected" at the end of major PEPs is
> > just a small part of that. Along the way, e.g., it's been pretty common
> > to see a "Save your breath. That's not going to happen." fr
[Chris Jerdonek]
> ... But one case in the back of my mind that may have prompted my
reply and that might qualify was when there was a randomness-related
>> security issue in the summer of 2016. I believe this is the thread
>> that kicked it off (subject line: "BDFL ruling request: should we
>> b
[Antoine]
> I know what python-ideas can be like routinely (I do read it at times).
>
> I think the general idea of my comment is that the signal-to-noise ratio
> on python-ideas is so low that, whether or not Guido had remained BDFL,
> we would still have a productivity problem to solve there.
>
[Tim]
> Guido's most visible (well, to us committers) BDFL role has been in
> "yes/no", "go/nogo" language/library design questions, which don't even
> overlap with the PSF's proper concerns.
>
> But I'm not sure it's fully appreciated just how active Guido has been in
> those at times. The "acce
[Barry Warsaw]
> ...
>
* We retain a singular BDFL to lead Python
> * A Council is selected to serve as advisors to the BDFL, a selection
> committee for succession, and a check against the BDFL.
>
You made a fine case for that a single dictator is the best possible
approach, for much the same re
[Antoine Pitrou]
> At this point we are not talking about a majority vote. All I see is a
> rushed plebiscite on a single governance model and a single person.
>
I view this as the "freewheeling brainstorming" initial part of the
process. We've barely even mentioned who the plebes may be - is i
[Senthil Kumaran ]
> ...
Personally, just as a nitpick, I'd like to reserve the term BDFL to Guido,
> and choose a different term to signify the ultimate authority of the new
> leader.
>
Finally - an important issue ;-)
I submit instead that Monty Python would _certainly_ have kept the BDFL
tit
[Barry Warsaw, on the origin of BDFL]
> I’d put my money on Uncle Timmy coining that term,
Don't be insulting, Barry. I have no patience - let alone love - for
frivolous wordplay.
It wasn't me, but Guido doesn't remember either. Here's his best guess:
https://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.
[Barry]
> I agree that we’ll effectively have language moratorium until we have a
> new governance structure.
Unsure! Governance is needed to resolve conflict. When there's broad
agreement, "leaders" aren't really needed. For example, there's been a bit
of talk on python-ideas about adding a
[Donald Stufft ]
> ...
> I’m struggling to find a resource besides that doesn’t also include
> shilling for another voting system or isn’t a lengthy paper but
> https://rangevoting.org/IRVpartic.html gives an example and
> https://rangevoting.org/TarrIrv.html is a more complex example.
>
The rang
[Alex Martelli ]
> While I suspect most participants are aware of this, just in care some
> don't I thought I'd just point out that it's futile to look for a "perfect"
> voting system -- Kenneth Arrow proved that long ago, see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
>
Yup!
[Tim, quoting Ping]> The following images visually demonstrate how
Plurality penalizes centrist
> > candidates and Borda favours them; how Approval and Condorcet yield
> nearly
> > identical results; and how the Hare method yields extremely strange
> > behaviour. ...
[Steven D'Aprano][
> Why a
[Chris Jerdonek [
> A major problem with approval voting IMO (and range and score) is that
> it constrains how voters can express themselves:
>
Well, that's an objection I never heard before - and expect I'll never hear
again ;-)
To the contrary, range/score voting are the _most_ expressive, all
There's a poll about the voting method to use to decide on the winning
governance PEP. We'd like to see more people weigh in:
https://discuss.python.org/t/python-governance-electoral-system/290/26
PEP 8001 specifies that IRV will be used. There's pushback against
that. Since a poll is a fo
[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. I
[Chris Jerdonek ]
> My reply was to Brett and not to you.
So it was! I missed that - I just noticed that the vast bulk of the
text I was replying to was a quote of my message here about the poll.
I should have checked.
> If I had known the poll was going to be binding,
As before, I had - and h
[Donald Stufft ]
> ...
> Really, 3-2-1 is the only one that it feels to me like could really argue
> about
> the tally method of the poll.
Since I suggested 3-2-1 to begin with, let me assure you that Approval
for the poll was fine with me. Heck, I didn't even once object that
the pool creator t
[Victor Stinner ,
asking lots of good questions]
> ...
> I see that the PEP 8001 is still being updated (voting method). Should
> we still expect new changes before the vote starts?
I don't detect any groundswell of opposition anymore now that the
voting method changed.
Nevertheless, I probably
[Victor Stinner ]
> 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.
Nobody else does either. This was
[Tim]
>> Nevertheless, I probably won't vote - I object to public ballots on
>> principle. That's been raised by others, so I won't repeat the
>> arguments, and I appear to be very much in a minority here.
[Eric Snow ]
> Would it help if we only published who voted, and kept their votes
> private
[Victor Stinner ]
>> The PEP 8001 is not trivial, it expects a specific format:
>>
>> **DO NOT LEAVE ANY BRACKETS BLANK!**
>> **DO NOT REPEAT A RANKING/NUMBER!**
[Nathaniel Smith ]
> I'm not sure what the motivation for those restrictions is. I guess
> with IRV there isn't an obvious way to handle
[Antoine Pitrou ]
> ...
> Discourse doesn't allow anything of that. It doesn't even *record*
> anything about the topical discussion flow, so it's not like a
> third-party tool or plugin could fix the problem, since the information
> is lost.
If there's been a direct reply to the message you're c
[Antoine]
>>> You're basically forced to accept the flat discussion view, which is
>>> completely
>>> unworkable to review a long and branchy discussion.
[Tim]
>> There are two more fundamental problems with long and branchy
>> discussions: they're long, and they're branchy ;-)
[Antoine]
> But
[Antoine Pitrou ]
> ...
> That's a complete strawman. python-ideas is a failure, and it would be
> as much of a failure with a non-threaded discussion system.
> ...
> Yes, but why? Because everyone really wants the governance discussions
> to succeed (and to succeed as soon as possible), so they
[Antoine]
> How does Discourse "work better", exactly?
Several examples have already been given. You're determined to hate
it, and that's fine.
> The long-winded discussion> on variants of voting systems (with
> close to 100 messages) isn't exactly *important* except for voting
> system nerds.
[Antoine]
>>> How does Discourse "work better", exactly?
[Tim]
>> Several examples have already been given. You're determined to hate
>> it, and that's fine.
[Antoine]
> That's an idiotic statement and an unwarranted personal attack.
It wasn't intended that way, but I can certainly see how it
[Steven D'Aprano ]
> I don't know what "multi quote" means, unless it means quoting multiple
> people's text in your reply. (Which I can do in email by copying and
> pasting.)
>
> Can you link to an example of this useful multi quoting please?
Sure - here's a message in which I included bits of th
[Donald Stufft ]
> So to avoid just complaining without an actionable suggestion, here’s a
> suggestion:
>
> Use https://civs.cs.cornell.edu with the following settings (x in the ones
> turned on):
Presumably someone is "running" this election, but I don't know who.
Do we believe they're paying
[Tim]
>> ... when there _was_ a Condorcet winner, the results page said
>>
>> (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)
>>
>> next to the winning candidate. Given that the results page also gives
>> a color-coded matrix of pairwise preference counts, verifying this is
>> trivial b
[Guido]
> Is it safe for people not interested in voting systems to
> ignore the rest of this thread?
Have you used mailing lists before? ;-) The topics in this particular
thread have, e.g., ranged from voting systems (the specific message
you're replying to), through whether and why Discourse do
[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 n
[Ernest W. Durbin III ]
> Of 96 eligible voters, 69 cast ballots.
FYI, the total number of votes Helios showed me summed to 340. At 5
approvals per ballot, I'd expect to see 5 * 69 = 345 for 69 ballots.
Are we missing a ballot?
___
python-committers mai
[Guido]
> There are some interesting speculations possible about the spread of
> the numbers ,and they give extra data on how the voters seem to think
> and which (types of) candidates are likely to do well in future elections.
Ir was already speculated about before the election ;-) As predicted
[Victor Stinner]
...
> By the way, I'm also surprised to see that on 11 "+1" votes, only 3
> added a comment. I'm not sure of the "value" of "+1" without a
> comment. Does the voter know Stéphane and/or saw his work. How did the
> voter make their decision? In the past, these comments helped me to
[Pablo Galindo Salgado ]
> Hi Marc,
>
> Yes, check out this from the 3.9 what's new document:
>
> https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.9.html#changes-in-the-c-api
>
> Instances of heap-allocated types (such as those created with
> PyType_FromSpec()
> and similar APIs) hold a reference to their typ
[Tim Peters ]
> ...
> This is, I believe, akin to what Marc-Andre is bringing up: if X
> can't be reached _from_ X's type object, there's no need for X's
> tp_traverse to visit X's type object. It _can_ be visited, but it
> would be a waste of time.
Ya,
[Tim]
>> But I think "waste of time" is the worst of it. Participating in
>> cyclic gc does nothing to delay refcounting from recycling objects
>> ASAP. gc only reclaims objects that are reachable only from dead
>> cycles; everything else in CPython is reclaimed the instant its
>> refcount falls t
[Tim]
>> And if a type pointer is the only thing being visited, then there's no point
>> unless the object can itself be reachable from the type object.
{Pablo]
> But that could happen easily for heap types as they are mutable by
> default. For instance, you set the instance in a global:
>
> type
;Victor Stinner ]
> ...
> For a more concrete example, read the "_thread lock traverse" section
> of my article on these problems:
> https://vstinner.github.io/subinterpreter-leaks.html
>
> There were two reference cycles, and both were "connected" with a lock
> object in the middle (look at my dra
{Tim]
> So, on what principled basis do we exempt, say, ints from
> participating in cyclic GC too?
{Pablo]
> In this case, the int object doesn't have a reference to its type because is
> not a heap type
> so that's fine.
That baffled me at first, because _every_ object contains a pointer to
it
[Pablo]
> Tim, check this out:
>
> >>> import re, gc
> >>> x = re.compile("x")
> >>> gc.get_referents(x.__class__)[-1]
>
Cool! So presumably this constructs a cycle involving a pattern object:
import re
p = re.compile("ab*c")
import _sre
_sre.WOWZA = p
Indeed, under the current main branch:
>>
[Brett]
> ...
> Please make sure you have a unique password for your GitHub account
> and that you have 2FA/MFA turned on (I honestly think we should start
> requiring this ...
I use 2FA on sites that cater to my reality ;-) That is, I don't have
a smartphone, or a cell phone of any kind, or any d
[Donald Stufft ]
> You can a Yubikey for like $15? or so and use that for best in class 2fa.
>
> You can also get an app for your desktop PC that can do TOTP codes
> (1Password has it built in, I’ve never used any of these applications
> though).
Thanks! Alas, it's all utter gibberish to me. I'm
FYI, after getting nudged by Jack Jansen (thanks!), I'm using 2FA on
GIthub now. If I can do it, anyone can. On WIndows desktop, no smart
phone, no cell phone, no QR code scanner. Using Authy (free), which
did one setup step via a landline phone call instead (Authy does
demand to know _a_ phone num
Just for interest, I noticed a failed login attempt to my Github
account about two hours ago, originating in Toronto.
That's the first fishy thing Github's security log ever showed for my account.
I do have 2FA enabled there now, so I'm not worried.
Coincidence? About a week after I enabled 2FA
New one to me!
The new
https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/30555
is dead in the water, with a "Check for source changes (pull_request)" failure.
Afraid to say I don't even know what that's trying to check.
The details show this at the end:
Error: Can't use 'tar -xzf' extract archive file:
at that's trying to
check either ;-)
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 8:57 PM Tim Peters wrote:
>
> New one to me!
>
> The new
>
> https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/30555
>
> is dead in the water, with a "Check for source changes (pull_request)"
> failure.
>
[Tim]
>> Bizarre. "Check for source changes (pull_request)" apparently fixed
>> itself by magic.
[Éric Araujo ]
> That was me! 🧙 I re-ran the workflow to see if it was a sporadic failure.
Cool! No more or less mysterious to me than if you hadn't ;-)
>> Now "Check if generated files are up to da
one in
> 3.1-trunk, so I don't care about them.)
>
> uid26747 has one commit that only affected
> Lib/test/test_generators.py. To me this reads like a Tim Peters
> commit message. Tim, does this seem familiar?
>
> --
>
I pretty much ignore Anatoly, and that works really well for me - try it ;-)
___
python-committers mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
[Benjamin Peterson ]
> As a followup to this, I have now removed all DSA keys. People who only
> had DSA keys will need to submit new keys to hgaccounts@.
That apparently was addressed to me - cool ;-)
Just noting that the Windows section of the devguide:
https://docs.python.org/devguide/faq
[Terry Reedy , on SSH keys]
> I sent a new one about 11 hours ago. I am still getting
> Putty Fatal Error
> Disconnected: No supported authentication methods available
> (server sent: publickey)
>
> Is anyone tending the mail box, or do I have to do something else?
My new one got installed about
[Alex Martelli]
>>> I still see a 404 at https://github.com/orgs/python/teams/python-core .
[Brett]
>> Apparently team membership is available only to other team members, so if
>> you have not been added to the team -- as is your case, Alex, as you didn't
>> put a GitHub username on bugs.python.or
[Tim]
>> I also get a 404, and my GitHub name (tim-one) was added some weeks ago
>> too:
>>
>> http://bugs.python.org/user6
>>
>> I suspect something isn't working as expected ;-)
>>
>> BTW, I'm unclear on what "you have the accepted the invite" might
>> mean. I don't recall receiving a plausibly
[Brett]
> You should have received it by email
If I did, I must have deleted it unread.
> (unless you're not tim-one on GitHub ;).
I am.
> Anyway, GitHub tells me you can visit https://github.com/python and accept
> the invite there.
That worked! Thanks :-)
__
68 matches
Mail list logo
