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] Suggestion: A PSF grant for running a "Core Dev Mentorship Program"

I'll try to address some of the points brought up here without trying to "sell" this too much. To reiterate: I'm suggesting the "Mentorship Program" only because of an apparent lack of regular contributors, many devs who would like to be mentored, and a low availability of core devs for

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

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

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

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] [OT] email clients

Le 03/11/2018 à 18:46, Donald Stufft a écrit : > >> On Nov 3, 2018, at 1:42 PM, Antoine Pitrou > > wrote: >> >>> Perhaps the difference is in that every mail client I’ve ever used >>> presents mailing list threads (or any thread) as a singular flat stream >>> anyways?

Re: [python-committers] Suggestion: A PSF grant for running a "Core Dev Mentorship Program"

On 03Nov2018 1006, Tal Einat wrote: My mentoring would aim to bring experienced developers to the point where they can consistently create high-quality PRs, requiring mostly high-level decisions from the experts. This is a great point, and I'm supportive of having "general reviewers" who can

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 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

> 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 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] [OT] email clients

> On Nov 3, 2018, at 1:57 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > I find it interesting that you are so disturbed by threaded discussion > views, while for some other people it's the reverse. That advocates for > a system that allows both kinds of presentation, and Discourse isn't that. I would agree

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] [OT] email clients

> On Nov 3, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > Le 03/11/2018 à 20:15, Donald Stufft a écrit : >> >> I’m the other way. I basically don’t participate in python-dev or >> python-ideas anymore because of the issues mailing lists have. > > Just a question: which tool do you use to

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] Suggestion: A PSF grant for running a "Core Dev Mentorship Program"

Le 02/11/2018 à 17:30, Victor Stinner a écrit : > >> There are much simpler and >> more approachable projects out there if they'd like to learn >> contributing to open source software. > > Exactly. This is why we fail to convert volunteer contributors to core > developers. They fly away because

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] [OT] email clients

On 11/03/2018 11:45 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: I would agree *if* that was the only axis that the two tools differed on. It's enough for me. My participation on Discourse is going to be so low you might think I went emeritus. :/ (Un)fortunately there is a laundry list of improvements over

Re: [python-committers] [OT] email clients

Le 03/11/2018 à 20:15, Donald Stufft a écrit : > > I’m the other way. I basically don’t participate in python-dev or > python-ideas anymore because of the issues mailing lists have. Just a question: which tool do you use to participate in distutils-sig discussions, then? Regards Antoine.

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

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] [OT] email clients

> On Nov 3, 2018, at 3:04 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: > > On 11/03/2018 11:45 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > >> I would agree *if* that was the only axis that the two tools differed on. > > It's enough for me. My participation on Discourse is going to be so low you > might think I went emeritus.

Re: [python-committers] [OT] email clients

> On Nov 3, 2018, at 3:19 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > > >> On Nov 3, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Antoine Pitrou > > wrote: >> >> >> Le 03/11/2018 à 20:15, Donald Stufft a écrit : >>> >>> I’m the other way. I basically don’t participate in python-dev or >>> python-ideas

Re: [python-committers] [OT] email clients

On 11/03/2018 12:32 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: I don’t mean to suggest that my participation is make or break for these lists. If I was the only one who felt this way, then I think it would be fair to say that I’m in the minority and while we want to encourage everyone, we can’t please

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] > 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 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] [OT] email clients

Le 03/11/2018 à 19:45, Donald Stufft a écrit : > > To be honest, I’m not even sure how you’d represent some of these things > in a threaded view. For instance within discourse I can multi quote > different posts to tie multiple lines of discussion together. How would > you present that in a

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

[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

[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] [OT] email clients

> On Nov 3, 2018, at 3:27 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > > > >> On Nov 3, 2018, at 3:19 PM, Donald Stufft > > wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Nov 3, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Antoine Pitrou >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Le 03/11/2018 à 20:15, Donald Stufft a

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

[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

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

> 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

[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 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