By the way, should the vote be public or secret?
For such an important (and sensitive) matter, perhaps it would be wise
for it to be secret.
Regards
Antoine.
Le 19/07/2018 à 00:18, Łukasz Langa a écrit :
>
>> On Jul 18, 2018, at 4:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>> While I am totally fine
I hate cabals. I prefer to keep everything open and transparent, as
this mailing list is public (even if only core developers are allowed
to post).
Which drawback do you see of making the votes public?
Victor
2018-07-19 0:26 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou :
>
> By the way, should the vote be public
The PSF uses a good voting system where votes are secret. I see no reason not
to reuse this infra.
--
Best regards,
Łukasz Langa
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 5:26 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
>
> By the way, should the vote be public or secret?
> For such an important (and sensitive) matter,
Le 19/07/2018 à 00:29, Victor Stinner a écrit :
> I hate cabals. I prefer to keep everything open and transparent, as
> this mailing list is public (even if only core developers are allowed
> to post).
Even if posting is public, you won't know whether there is a cabal or
not (unless you are part
Le 19/07/2018 à 00:36, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
>
> Le 19/07/2018 à 00:29, Victor Stinner a écrit :
>> I hate cabals. I prefer to keep everything open and transparent, as
>> this mailing list is public (even if only core developers are allowed
>> to post).
>
> Even if posting is public, you
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 superseded, recycling the PEP number seems out of character with
+1
--
Zach
(On a phone)
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 21:54 Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 07/18/2018 07:36 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
> > [tl;dr: We need some ground rules, because uncertainty makes it hard
> > to think straight. But if we get sucked into a complicated meta-debate
> > about the ground
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 superseded, recycling the PEP number seems out of character with the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
FWIW, +1.
Alex
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 7:36 PM Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> [tl;dr: We need some ground rules, because uncertainty makes it hard
> to think straight. But if we get sucked into a complicated meta-debate
> about the ground rules then that defeats the purpose. My proposal for
> a
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
Hi Brett,
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:51 PM Brett Cannon wrote:
> [can I just say how much I've missed having both you and Tim around, Alex?
> ]
Heh, good to hear!-)
Another bit of concrete numbers: to get 84 people (roughly 2/3 of 91)
>
Uh, sorry, but -- even were you to become BDFL, you
> 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
There are plenty of precedents for mandatory voting, but the enforcement
mechanisms (if any) appear not to be applicable to our case. Note the "if
any": several countries declare voting a citizen's duty (in their
Constitution or otherwise) but don't actually enforce this duty in any way.
For
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 18:09 Alex Martelli, wrote:
> Hi Brett,
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:51 PM Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>> [can I just say how much I've missed having both you and Tim around,
>> Alex? ]
>
>
> Heh, good to hear!-)
>
> Another bit of concrete numbers: to get 84 people (roughly
On 07/18/2018 08:45 PM, Łukasz Langa wrote:>
>> On Jul 18, 2018, at 9:36 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> I propose: no governance decisions finalized before October
>> 1, 2018.
>
> +1 but it's okay and expected that discussions here will continue in the
interim.
Absolutely! Without
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,
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 Jul 18, 2018, at 4:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> While I am totally fine with a super-majority of votes for something to be
> accepted, I don't think the minimum participation requirement will work. If
> people simply choose not to vote then they choose not to (we have no way to
>
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 6:18 PM, Łukasz Langa wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 18, 2018, at 4:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>> While I am totally fine with a super-majority of votes for something to be
>> accepted, I don't think the minimum participation requirement will work. If
>> people simply
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 15:46 Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>
> > On Jul 18, 2018, at 6:18 PM, Łukasz Langa wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Jul 18, 2018, at 4:56 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >>
> >> While I am totally fine with a super-majority of votes for something to
> be accepted, I don't think the minimum
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."
Excerpts from Łukasz Langa's message of 2018-07-18 17:31:40 -0500:
> The PSF uses a good voting system where votes are secret. I see no reason not
> to reuse this infra.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Łukasz Langa
This feels like a case where a consensus-based voting system may
be better than one
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 09:32 Mariatta Wijaya,
wrote:
> There is a de facto moratorium for the time being until a new governance
>> model is chosen. Let's not formalize anything beyond that.
>
>
> I agree.
>
Same here.
-Brett
> Mariatta
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:24 AM Łukasz Langa
So, I'm fine with this, but FWIW I'm also fine with anything we come
up with: I trust us, our intentions individually and in aggregate, and
I can't imagine a poor outcome.
-Rob
On 19 July 2018 at 14:36, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> [tl;dr: We need some ground rules, because uncertainty makes it
> 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
[starting a new thread]
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 14:04 Łukasz Langa wrote:
>
> > On Jul 18, 2018, at 1:23 PM, Alex Martelli wrote:
> >
> > 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
[can I just say how much I've missed having both you and Tim around, Alex?
]
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 17:28 Alex Martelli via python-committers, <
python-committers@python.org> wrote:
> There are plenty of precedents for mandatory voting, but the enforcement
> mechanisms (if any) appear not to be
[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
2018-07-19 0:36 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou :
> Let's say I'm being asked if X should be a « next BDFL » (or Council
> member, etc.) and I vote no publicly. What is my position if X is
> elected? How will my vote be interpreted? Will I get discriminated
> against (even unconsciously) just because
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
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,
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
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 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
On Jul 18, 2018, at 09:11, Stefan Krah wrote:
> if I remember correctly, we had a moratorium for language changes around
> versions 3.2-3.3. I think during that time relatively few BDFL-level
> decisions were required.
>
> Perhaps we could have one again, say for 12 months so we can figure
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 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 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 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 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
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
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
>
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 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
There is a de facto moratorium for the time being until a new governance model
is chosen. Let's not formalize anything beyond that.
--
Best regards,
Łukasz Langa
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 11:11 AM, Stefan Krah wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> if I remember correctly, we had a moratorium for language
>
> There is a de facto moratorium for the time being until a new governance
> model is chosen. Let's not formalize anything beyond that.
I agree.
Mariatta
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:24 AM Łukasz Langa wrote:
> There is a de facto moratorium for the time being until a new governance
> model
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
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 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
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
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
Hi,
if I remember correctly, we had a moratorium for language changes around
versions 3.2-3.3. I think during that time relatively few BDFL-level
decisions were required.
Perhaps we could have one again, say for 12 months so we can figure things
out. Other Python implementations may welcome
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.
[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
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 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
[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 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
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 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
I am in favor of a time limit. Yet, October 1 seems a bit too long for the
initial governance decision (i.e. how to decide how to decide). My
perspective, based on transitions in non-profits and the corporate world,
is that the longer an organization let's it draw out then fear,
uncertainty, and
+1
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 8:54 PM Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 07/18/2018 08:45 PM, Łukasz Langa wrote:>
> >> On Jul 18, 2018, at 9:36 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> I propose: no governance decisions finalized before October
> >> 1, 2018.
> >
> > +1 but it's okay and expected that
On 07/18/2018 09:40 PM, Carol Willing wrote:
I am in favor of a time limit. Yet, October 1 seems a bit too long for the
initial governance decision (i.e. how to
decide how to decide). My perspective, based on transitions in non-profits and
the corporate world, is that the longer
an
Thanks Ethan for clarifying. Totally cool if that is the case.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 10:19 PM Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 07/18/2018 09:40 PM, Carol Willing wrote:
> > I am in favor of a time limit. Yet, October 1 seems a bit too long for
> the initial governance decision (i.e. how to
> > decide
> 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;
Le 18/07/2018 à 20:47, Barry Warsaw a écrit :
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 09:11, Stefan Krah wrote:
>
>> if I remember correctly, we had a moratorium for language changes around
>> versions 3.2-3.3. I think during that time relatively few BDFL-level
>> decisions were required.
>>
>> Perhaps we could
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:47:22AM -0700, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 09:11, Stefan Krah wrote:
>
> > if I remember correctly, we had a moratorium for language changes around
> > versions 3.2-3.3. I think during that time relatively few BDFL-level
> > decisions were required.
> >
On 2018-07-18 20:47, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 09:11, Stefan Krah wrote:
>
>> if I remember correctly, we had a moratorium for language changes around
>> versions 3.2-3.3. I think during that time relatively few BDFL-level
>> decisions were required.
>>
>> Perhaps we could have
[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:
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
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
73 matches
Mail list logo
