>>>>> "BAW" == Barry A Warsaw <bwarsaw@beopen.com> writes: >>>>> "PP" == Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net> writes: PP> I'm not clear on the role of opinions in this process. Do all of PP> the opinions about a proposal go in the PEP: PP> | * "I hate this, here's why" PP> | * "I have a minor enhancement proposal" PP> | * "Here is my competing proposal" BAW> In some sense yes, but it's the job of the owner/shepherd to BAW> follow the various threads, and include debate about the BAW> proposal as open issues. This would all lead to one of these BAW> conclusions: BAW> - we've reached consensus and now need just implement the BAW> proposal BAW> - we've reached an impasse and the BDFL will rule by decree BAW> - the proposal is hopeless flawed and the idea should be BAW> dropped BAW> - we need more information or research BAW> - we're defering the proposal to a future release This is the reason I suggested maintaining a separate mail archive of discussion. The PEP ought to represent a coherent proposal. It should discuss alternatives, but it should not be a compendium of all discussion and every possible idea. I would like to see something like the IETF model -- "rough consensus and running code" -- adopted. Python will be differently clearly, because the whole slogan is "We don't believe in kings, presidents, or voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code."[1] In the Python community, we do believe in at least one benevolent dictator for life. I propose the following guidlines: The PEP author is responsible for developing what he or she believes is a complete and coherent proposal. To be adopted, the PEP must constitute either the consensus opinion of the community (as determined by the PEP editor, Barry "Jon Postel" Warsaw) *or* be endorsed by Guido. It seems possible that we could have two different proposals for the same feature, which suggests we might want to have some notation about the final status of a PEP, e.g. accepted, rejected, etc., or that we have something like Internet drafts that will become PEPs only if adopted. Jeremy Note 1: People have suggested that it's actually the opposite: running consensus and rough code.
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