>>>>> "MZ" == Moshe Zadka <moshez@zadka.site.co.il> writes: MZ> The PEP process, while *miles* better then anything I've seen in MZ> any other development process I've ever seen, has some (Not that we've used the PEP process for much of anything yet. Except, I guess, extended print, which I've grown quite fond of.) MZ> deficiencies. I'll try to point them out, and to suggest some MZ> partial solution: I don't like your partial solution, so I'll try to pick about the problems with the process <0.8 wink>. Put another way: I can't envision Slashdot as a useful design forum, but am interested in improving the PEP process. MZ> 1. Users are not sure who to post PEP questions/remarks to: MZ> Python dev? the original author? The Python devver they know MZ> best? In the absence of a reason to post elsewhere, the comments ought to be sent to the PEP author. If the message is intended to provoke wider discussion, then the user can post it on any relevent forum (and cc the PEP author). A Unicode PEP might be discussed on the i18n-sig; a Web PEP on the python-web-modules list; a change to core Python on python-dev. I don't think there will ever be a rule that says: "Comments on PEP 1812 must be posted to the pep-1812 web forum." Discussion should occur in the forum in which it is most relevent. Perhaps we could all send our comments to Andrew, and he could write a bi-weekly pep-comment summary <wink>. Is the problem that you don't know where to post comments on someone else's PEP, or that you are having trouble keeping track of discussions in multiple places? MZ> 2. It is the responsiblity of the PEP author to add open MZ> questions/pertinent remarks to the PEP. What is the deficiency with this approach? The PEP is supposed to present a coherent proposal and design for a new language feature. It is the designer's responsibility to write a good design document; several people can share responsibility for the design. Are you saying it's a problem that the PEPs aren't open to modification by anyone? (The last thing we need is someone who doesn't understand what a first-class function is messing with the scoping PEP <0.2 wink>.) The designer is responsible for discussing trade-offs and alternatives to justify her design. This is where the responsibility to address questions and comments comes from. MZ> 3. Mail about the PEP which contains important discussion is MZ> lost. How? I've got all the mail on the nested static scopes PEP. Is the problem just the personal burden of keeping track of lots of mail messages discussing a PEP? Any discussion that occurs on a mailing list will be preserved in the mailing list archive. That's not lost. So the only problem would be with discussion that occurs in private email, where everyone deletes copies of the mail. I wonder if the key problem is not having an authoritative mail archive for the PEP. One part of the Scheme RFI process that we did not copy was having a mail archive for each document. Perhaps this would be sufficient to address your concerns. If you, the PEP author, receive a comment by private email, you could bounce it to the archive. the-biggest-problem-with-the-PEP-process-is-no-one-writing-PEPs-ly y'rs, Jeremy
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