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

Le jeu. 15 nov. 2018 à 23:51, Paul Moore a écrit : > No, I'm uncomfortable with the discussion period overlapping the > voting period, because the fact that you can't change your vote means > that once someone votes, there's no incentive to continue discussing. > But I accept that it's how it's

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

On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 18:55, Brett Cannon wrote: > OK, so it seems you're unhappy that you only have a day to vote since you > can't change your vote ... [...] > ... but then you don't like that people can vote over two weeks because you > don't want discussions to occur while people can vote

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

On 15.11.2018 19:39, Barry Warsaw wrote: > Based on my suggestion on Discourse, I propose that the period between > tomorrow and November 30th be an official PEP review period, with voting > postponed to December 1 - 16 AOE 2018. > > https://github.com/python/peps/pull/841 > > I am personally

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

On 15.11.2018 19:55, Brett Cannon wrote: > > It seems like we're completely skipping the review phase of the > regular PEP process and going straight from PEP writing to > a vote: > > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/#id38 > > which is odd given the importance of

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

On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 05:09, Paul Moore wrote: > On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 12:55, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > > > > I find it rather unusual that we are pushed to vote on PEPs > > which will just have been finished in writing tonight. > > > > Shouldn't people who were not involved in the individual

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

Based on my suggestion on Discourse, I propose that the period between tomorrow and November 30th be an official PEP review period, with voting postponed to December 1 - 16 AOE 2018. https://github.com/python/peps/pull/841 I am personally going to start reviewing these PEPs after the flood of

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

> > Shouldn't people who were not involved in the individual creation > processes at least get two weeks to review the final work > to make up their mind before entering a voting period ? > It seems like we're completely skipping the review phase of the > regular PEP process and going straight

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

On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 12:55, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > > I find it rather unusual that we are pushed to vote on PEPs > which will just have been finished in writing tonight. > > Shouldn't people who were not involved in the individual creation > processes at least get two weeks to review the final

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

I find it rather unusual that we are pushed to vote on PEPs which will just have been finished in writing tonight. Shouldn't people who were not involved in the individual creation processes at least get two weeks to review the final work to make up their mind before entering a voting period ?

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

Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 03:37, Victor Stinner a écrit : > According to the PEP 8001: "The vote will happen in a 2-week-long > window from November 16 2018 to November 30 (Anywhere-on-Earth)." It's > now in less than two weeks. It seems like the vote is going to start tomorrow, but see discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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 -

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

[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

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

[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

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

On 04Nov2018 0338, Paul Moore wrote: I felt that "disenfranchised" described how I feel pretty well. If you're saying that my understanding of the word is inaccurate, then fine, I'm happy you know better than me. But I explained my problem in more detail as well as stating the summary version -

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

Le 04/11/2018 à 12:38, Paul Moore a écrit : > On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 00:21, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> But let's be fair to those who have put in the effort to make this work >> so far. "Disenfranchisement" is not even close to a fair criticism. > > Frankly, I'm tired of being picked up on

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

Is it safe for people not interested in voting systems to ignore the rest of this thread? I hope that if there's an update on the voting period or specifics on how to vote (or what the choices are) these will be posted to a new thread. I want to mute this one. On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 12:24 AM Tim

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

> On Nov 4, 2018, at 1:52 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > >> >> On Nov 3, 2018, at 11:56 PM, Tim Peters > > wrote: >> >> [Donald Stufft mailto:don...@stufft.io>>] >>> So to avoid just complaining without an actionable suggestion, here’s a >>> suggestion: >>> >>> Use

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

> On Nov 3, 2018, at 11:56 PM, Tim Peters wrote: > > [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

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

[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

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

> On Nov 3, 2018, at 8:41 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > As far as I am aware there is a topic per PEP on discourse that has had > discussion mostly related to the specific PEP. I’m not aware of any general > “weighing the options” topic on any discussion forum. I think so far it’s > mostly

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

On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 10:55:14AM +, Paul Moore wrote: [...] > 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

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

[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

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

On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 01:24:46PM -0400, Donald Stufft wrote: > Huh, I found the experience exactly the opposite. I was just remarking > last night how glad I was that the discussion happened in discourse > instead of on the mailing list, because of how poorly I felt the > discussion would

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

[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

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

Le 03/11/2018 à 22:30, Tim Peters a écrit : > [Antoine] >> How does Discourse "work better", exactly? > > Several examples have already been given. You're determined to hate > it, and that's fine. That's an idiotic statement and an unwarranted personal attack. If that's all you're taking from

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

[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.

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

> On Nov 3, 2018, at 4:45 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > > > > One thing we need if we do go this route, is a single person to act as the > election supervisor. Their powers are limited basically they configure the > election, adding a description, the choices, etc and then they have the

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

> On Nov 3, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > > >> On Nov 3, 2018, at 2:06 PM, Barry Warsaw > > wrote: >> >> I also prefer private ballots on principle, but I’ll still vote if they are >> public. I don’t completely buy into the rationale in PEP 8001 on

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

Le 03/11/2018 à 20:34, Tim Peters a écrit : > > This may be a clear demonstration of one way Discourse "works better": > the "conversation" we're having here is really of little value to > anyone, including to us. How does Discourse "work better", exactly? The long-winded discussion on

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

[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

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

Le 03/11/2018 à 20:07, Tim Peters a écrit : > [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:

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

> On Nov 3, 2018, at 2:06 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > I also prefer private ballots on principle, but I’ll still vote if they are > public. I don’t completely buy into the rationale in PEP 8001 on why they > must be public. So to avoid just complaining without an actionable suggestion,

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

[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

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

Le 03/11/2018 à 19:41, Tim Peters a écrit : > >> You're basically forced to accept the flat discussion view, which is >> completely >> unworkable to review a long and branchy discussion. > > There are two more fundamental problems with long and branchy > discussions: they're long, and they're

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

[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

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

On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 11:06:12AM -0700, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Nov 2, 2018, at 20:24, Tim Peters wrote: > > > 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

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

On Nov 2, 2018, at 20:24, Tim Peters wrote: > 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. I also prefer private ballots on principle, but I’ll

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

> On Nov 3, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > Le 03/11/2018 à 16:19, Stefan Krah a écrit : >> On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 07:22:21AM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote: >>> On 11/03/2018 03:55 AM, Paul Moore wrote: >>> Frankly, I feel pretty disenfranchised by the process at the

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

Le 03/11/2018 à 16:19, Stefan Krah a écrit : > On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 07:22:21AM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote: >> On 11/03/2018 03:55 AM, Paul Moore wrote: >> >>> Frankly, I feel pretty disenfranchised by the process >>> at the moment. >> >> +1 > > I wouldn't go as far as disenfranchised, but just

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

On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 07:22:21AM -0700, Ethan Furman wrote: > On 11/03/2018 03:55 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > > >Frankly, I feel pretty disenfranchised by the process > >at the moment. > > +1 I wouldn't go as far as disenfranchised, but just this thread made it clear to me that taking in

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

On 11/03/2018 03:55 AM, Paul Moore wrote: Frankly, I feel pretty disenfranchised by the process at the moment. +1 -- ~Ethan~ ___ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

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

On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 at 02:37, Victor Stinner wrote: > > According to the PEP 8001: "The vote will happen in a 2-week-long > window from November 16 2018 to November 30 (Anywhere-on-Earth)." It's > now in less than two weeks. > > I see that the PEP 8001 is still being updated (voting method).

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

Le 03/11/2018 à 04:40, Victor Stinner a écrit : >>> 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. > > I'm unhappy

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

[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

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

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: > The PEP 8001 is not trivial, it expects a specific format: > > **DO NOT LEAVE ANY BRACKETS BLANK!** > **DO NOT REPEAT A RANKING/NUMBER!** > > Maybe it would help to have a script to validate my own vote? (Also > ensure that all choices are

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

[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

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

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018, 21:44 Victor Stinner Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 04:40, Eric Snow a > écrit : > > Would it help if we only published who voted, and kept their votes > private? Publishing the actual votes probably doesn't make a big > difference here, relative to the broader Python/tech

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

Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 04:40, Eric Snow a écrit : > Would it help if we only published who voted, and kept their votes private? > Publishing the actual votes probably doesn't make a big difference here, > relative to the broader Python/tech community. The PEP has a whole section explaining the

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

> > 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. I'm unhappy with the "[] Further discussion" choice. We have a

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

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018, 21:24 Tim Peters 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. > Would it help if we only published who voted, and kept their

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

[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

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

Hi, According to the PEP 8001: "The vote will happen in a 2-week-long window from November 16 2018 to November 30 (Anywhere-on-Earth)." It's now in less than two weeks. I see that the PEP 8001 is still being updated (voting method). Should we still expect new changes before the vote starts? Can