The following paragraph is from PEP 1, "PEP Work Flow" section:
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.
I propose adding the following text:
... The BDFL may also initiate a PEP review, first notifying the
PEP author(s).
In addition, I think it would be useful to add some text describing
the PEP acceptance criteria. Something like the following:
For a PEP to be accepted it must meet certain minimum criteria.
It must be a clear description of the proposed enhancement. The
enhancement must represent a net improvement. The implementation,
if applicable, must be solid and must not complicate the
interpreter unduly. Finally, a proposed enhancement must be
"pythonic" in order to be accepted by the BDFL. (However,
"pythonic" is an imprecise term; it may be defined as whatever is
acceptable to the BDFL. This logic is intentionally circular.)
See PEP 2 for standard library module acceptance criteria.
Please comment.
--
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