On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 at 15:36 Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 08:58 Brett Cannon wrote:
>> > While I'm purposefully staying out of this thread as my name is
>> > currently so strongly associated with it and I don't
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 at 15:36 Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 08:58 Brett Cannon wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 07:51 Nick Coghlan, wrote:
> >>
> >> Guido was willing to do it for so long because Python was his
> >> creation, and he grew into the increasing demands
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 08:58 Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 07:51 Nick Coghlan, wrote:
>>
>> Guido was willing to do it for so long because Python was his
>> creation, and he grew into the increasing demands of the BDFL role as
>> time went by, but even he eventually reached
On 20Jul2018 0858, Brett Cannon wrote:
While I'm purposefully staying out of this thread as my name is
currently so strongly associated with it and I don't want people
thinking I'm a megalomaniac, I will say that I see no reason why I
wouldn't get 50% time at Microsoft if I asked for it (I
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 07:51 Nick Coghlan, wrote:
> On 18 July 2018 at 16:42, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
> > I agree a name other than BDFL should be chosen, especially since (as
> > I understand it) Guido is still BDFL but just taking a permanent
> > vacation, and the name implies there should only
On 18 July 2018 at 16:42, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
> I agree a name other than BDFL should be chosen, especially since (as
> I understand it) Guido is still BDFL but just taking a permanent
> vacation, and the name implies there should only be one.
>
> Also, if we're considering particular people, I
On Jul 18, 2018, at 17:31, Alex Martelli via python-committers
wrote:
> Humans do so love to argue!
>
> No we don't! (cfr http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php)...
I guess that means we do love getting hit on the head…
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:09 PM Fred Drake wrote:
> > On Jul 18, 2018, at 4:14 PM, Mariatta Wijaya
> wrote:
> > Let's be clear that we're not yet at the stage where we can vote for
> anything, let alone how to vote.
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 6:03 PM Łukasz Langa wrote:
> > I don't understand
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 7:16 PM Mariatta Wijaya
wrote:
> Next available is PEP lucky number 13
>
As an integer, it has no known problems. What could possibly go wrong?
;-) To bad safe, make sure it lands on a Friday.
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
"A storm broke loose in my mind."
Next available is PEP lucky number 13
Mariatta
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:14 PM Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 16:06, Fred Drake wrote:
>
> > PEP 2 is (currently) the "Procedure for Adding New Modules". Though
> > superseded, recycling the PEP number seems out of character with
On Jul 18, 2018, at 16:06, Fred Drake wrote:
> PEP 2 is (currently) the "Procedure for Adding New Modules". Though
> superseded, recycling the PEP number seems out of character with the
> RFC process from which we derived the PEP process. Let's be cautious
> about recycling like that; integers
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 7:06 PM, Fred Drake wrote:
>
> PEP 2 is (currently) the "Procedure for Adding New Modules". Though
> superseded, recycling the PEP number seems out of character with the
> RFC process from which we derived the PEP process. Let's be cautious
> about recycling like that;
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 4:14 PM, Mariatta Wijaya
> wrote:
> Let's be clear that we're not yet at the stage where we can vote for
> anything, let alone how to vote.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 6:03 PM Łukasz Langa wrote:
> I don't understand what you mean. Before we get to vote on a variant of PEP
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 4:14 PM, Mariatta Wijaya
> wrote:
>
> Let's be clear that we're not yet at the stage where we can vote for
> anything, let alone how to vote.
I don't understand what you mean. Before we get to vote on a variant of PEP 2,
we need to decide how we are supposed to perform
Is it necessary to put exact percentages here?
I think a BDFL-replacement should have the support of a large majority of the
community. I would expect anyone who would be considered as BDFL in the first
place would voluntarily step down once this is no longer the case. I don’t
think it is
Let's be clear that we're not yet at the stage where we can vote for
anything, let alone how to vote.
Barry made one proposal, that's all.
Last week someone suggested doing research of other governance models. We
should still do that before we even start voting on anything.
Mariatta
On Wed,
[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:
Le 18/07/2018 à 19:51, Barry Warsaw a écrit :
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 01:43, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>
>> Why do you think non-BDFL projects have a problem with """ambiguity as
>> to the authority of said decision"""? What is your basis for that
>> assertion?
>
> With more people empowered to
On Jul 18, 2018, at 10:13, Eric Snow wrote:
> Regardless of when it happens (if ever), what will happen
> in the future when we don't have anyone suitable? One danger is that
> we will install someone un-suitable because "we've always had a BDFL".
> But what is that "danger"? What impact could
Since 1179 (and with a few very minor exceptions in the centuries right
after then -- none since 1612), the Catholic Church requires a
super-majority of 2/3 to elect a new Pope. I don't see how the choice of a
BDFL is so much more important to the Python community, than the choice of
a Pope is to
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 11:54 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> Are you saying that we should use some method besides voting, or that a
> higher percentage of yea votes is required? If the latter, I have no problem
> with 66% or 75%.
The cleanest way would be for Guido to choose but he already said
On Jul 18, 2018, at 09:44, Steve Dower wrote:
> Right now, I imagine Barry is testing the waters to see whether it's worth
> his time writing this up as a proposed PEP 2. Other people seem to be
> interested in also proposing alternative PEP 2s, and eventually we as a group
> will have to
On Jul 18, 2018, at 09:10, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> 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.
Antoine, there’s nothing rushed about this. I made a proposal, and there’s a
healthy debate going
On Jul 18, 2018, at 03:31, Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> I think this is the crux of the argument: getting a group of people, even a
> small one, to agree on a singular vision can be very difficult.
Yep.
>> I also think a council will be much more risk adverse than a singular BDFL,
>> and that’s
On Jul 18, 2018, at 03:04, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> If we're talking about a dictator (this is Barry's proposal), we're not
> talking about someone that just makes language design decisions, as
> Victor pointed out.
I’m talking about a singular leader who has the responsibility and vision to
On Jul 18, 2018, at 02:49, Ethan Furman wrote:
>> (*) (I'm leaving the "benevolent" part out, since clearly it was only
>> tied to Guido's personality, not to any inherent statutory limitations)
>
> I think that's a mistake. Clearly, the "benevolent" part is a major criteria
> for the
On Jul 18, 2018, at 01:43, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Why do you think non-BDFL projects have a problem with """ambiguity as
> to the authority of said decision"""? What is your basis for that
> assertion?
With more people empowered to make a binding decision as part of a Supreme
Council,
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:44 AM Steve Dower wrote:
> Your contributions to this part of the discussion are also very useful -
> we need to know what concerns people have, and often those concerns may
> not have occurred to those of us who approach it with a more idealistic
> idea of how
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:36 AM Łukasz Langa wrote:
> A simple majority vote is wildly insufficient for this case. Python is a
> large project with many contributors and alienating maybe tens of them is not
> acceptable, especially if we are talking about a "for life" choice.
+1
-eric
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:43 AM Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le 18/07/2018 à 04:02, Barry Warsaw a écrit :
> > A singular BDFL provides clear leadership. With a council of elders, it
> > will be more difficult to communicate both to the Python community, and to
> > the larger, more peripheral user
I find this discussion really interesting from a social perspective.
Let's keep it going for a while without jumping to any conclusions.
It's too early to head down into one particular rabbit hole yet ;-)
There's no rush and if things crystallize only in a year's time,
that's perfectly fine.
On Jul 17, 2018, at 22:55, Kushal Das wrote:
> +1 to this idea including Brett as BDFL. Though I am wondering if
> anyone asked Brett about it?
I know my email was long, so easy to overlook, but I did ask Brett and he
didn’t immediately say no. :)
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: Message
[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
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:38 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> Le 18/07/2018 à 18:36, Łukasz Langa a écrit :
> >
> >
> > A simple majority vote is wildly insufficient for this case. Python is a
> large project with many contributors and alienating maybe tens of them is
> not acceptable, especially if
[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
On 07/18/2018 09:36 AM, Łukasz Langa wrote:
On Jul 18, 2018, at 10:58 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
If we, by majority vote, pick a governance model (dictator, council, or
>> whatever), then that legitimizes it. If we, by majority vote, pick the
>> new BDFL, then that legitimizes it. Being
On 18Jul2018 0910, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le 18/07/2018 à 17:58, Ethan Furman a écrit :
If we, by majority vote, pick a governance model (dictator, council, or
whatever), then that legitimizes it. If we, by
majority vote, pick the new BDFL, then that legitimizes it. Being unhappy with
the
Le 18/07/2018 à 18:36, Łukasz Langa a écrit :
>
>> On Jul 18, 2018, at 10:58 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>>
>> If we, by majority vote, pick a governance model (dictator, council, or
>> whatever), then that legitimizes it. If we, by majority vote, pick the new
>> BDFL, then that legitimizes it.
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 10:58 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> If we, by majority vote, pick a governance model (dictator, council, or
> whatever), then that legitimizes it. If we, by majority vote, pick the new
> BDFL, then that legitimizes it. Being unhappy with the choice does not make
> the
Le 18/07/2018 à 17:58, Ethan Furman a écrit :
>
> If we, by majority vote, pick a governance model (dictator, council, or
> whatever), then that legitimizes it. If we, by
> majority vote, pick the new BDFL, then that legitimizes it. Being unhappy
> with the choice does not make the choice
On 07/18/2018 03:04 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hi Ethan,
Le 18/07/2018 à 11:49, Ethan Furman a écrit :
You're creating a huge problem here. Whatever dictator you come up
with, not everyone will be ok with that choice. What are they supposed
to do? If one doesn't think X is legitimate as a
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:15 PM Eric V. Smith wrote:
> On 7/17/2018 10:02 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > I’d like to propose an alternative model, and with it a succession plan,
> > that IMHO hasn’t gotten enough discussion. It’s fairly radical in that it
> > proposes to not actually change that
On 07/17/2018 07:02 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
TL;DR: I propose keeping a singular BDFL and adding a Council of Advisors
> that helps the BDFL in various capacities, with additional responsibilities.
Having a singular BDFL certainly has its advantages, and from my interactions with Brett I
Hi Ethan,
Le 18/07/2018 à 11:49, Ethan Furman a écrit :
>>
>> You're creating a huge problem here. Whatever dictator you come up
>> with, not everyone will be ok with that choice. What are they supposed
>> to do? If one doesn't think X is legitimate as a dictator, how does one
>> keep
On 07/18/2018 01:43 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le 18/07/2018 à 04:02, Barry Warsaw a écrit :
If you’ve read this far - thank you! Now for the big reveal. I think the
>> Next BDFL should be… (drum roll)…
Brett Cannon
Since you're opening this can of worms, I'll say it:
- I'm -1 on a new
Hi Barry,
Le 18/07/2018 à 04:02, Barry Warsaw a écrit :
>
> A singular BDFL provides clear leadership. With a council of elders, it will
> be more difficult to communicate both to the Python community, and to the
> larger, more peripheral user base, that any particular individual has the
>
I also agree 100% with Barry's proposal. I think he's absolutely right
that one of the important features of Python (both the language and
the community) is the single focus and vision of the BDFL, and reading
Barry's mail crystallised for me the unease I felt about the proposals
around a Council,
I agree a name other than BDFL should be chosen, especially since (as
I understand it) Guido is still BDFL but just taking a permanent
vacation, and the name implies there should only be one.
Also, if we're considering particular people, I think Nick should also
be considered.
Should the
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:17 AM Tim Peters wrote:
>
>
> [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.
>
>
+1 to this idea including
[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
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> If you’ve read this far - thank you! Now for the big reveal. I think the
> Next BDFL should be… (drum roll)…
>
> Brett Cannon
>
> To summarize:
>
> * We retain a singular BDFL to lead Python
> * A Council is selected to serve as advisors
I apologize if this has already been mentioned on a different thread,
but something else I like about the BDFL model is that it avoids
"design by committee." I think Python owes a lot of its success to its
coherence as a language, which is in large part due to Guido's vision,
as well as making the
Barry, you offer truly compelling arguments for a new BDFL as GvR's
successor -- FWIW, you've convinced me.
And Brett would be an absolutely outstanding pick as that "new BDFL" -- on
this, I need no convincing.
Alex
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 7:08 PM Barry Warsaw wrote:
> I’d like to propose an
I wholeheartedly agree with Barry's suggestion.
It offers a single person who can communicate the design vision. While the
support of a council will help spread out the work and provides a great way
to grow future leaders and a smooth transition if for any reason (family,
work, health, etc.) the
On Jul 17, 2018, at 22:15, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> On 7/17/2018 10:02 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> I’d like to propose an alternative model, and with it a succession plan,
>> that IMHO hasn’t gotten enough discussion. It’s fairly radical in that it
>> proposes to not actually change that much!
>>
On 7/17/2018 10:02 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I’d like to propose an alternative model, and with it a succession plan, that
IMHO hasn’t gotten enough discussion. It’s fairly radical in that it proposes
to not actually change that much!
TL;DR: I propose keeping a singular BDFL and adding a
I’d like to propose an alternative model, and with it a succession plan, that
IMHO hasn’t gotten enough discussion. It’s fairly radical in that it proposes
to not actually change that much!
TL;DR: I propose keeping a singular BDFL and adding a Council of Advisors that
helps the BDFL in
57 matches
Mail list logo
