There are several PEPs with "Draft" status which are ripe for review.
PEP 1 states:
Once the authors have completed a PEP, they must inform the PEP
editor that it is ready for review. PEPs are reviewed by the BDFL
and his chosen consultants, who may accept or reject a PEP or send
it back to the author(s) for revision.
Once a PEP has been accepted, the reference implementation must be
completed. When the reference implementation is complete and
accepted by the BDFL, the status will be changed to "Final".
PEP authors, please keep your PEPs up to date. When you think the PEP
is ready for review, please send a note to <peps@python.org> stating
"PEP X is ready for review". Otherwise the PEP may remain in "Draft"
limbo indefinitely. It is the PEP author's responsibility to move the
process forward:
Each PEP must have a champion -- someone who writes the PEP using
the style and format described below, shepherds the discussions in
the appropriate forums, and attempts to build community consensus
around the idea.
Authors with CVS check-in privileges are welcome to check in their own
content changes. Others should send updates to <peps@python.org>
(please make updates to the latest text from CVS).
--
David Goodger <http://starship.python.net/~goodger>
Python Enhancement Proposal (PEP) Editor <http://www.python.org/peps/>
(Please cc: all PEP correspondence to <peps@python.org>.)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4