[David Goodger]
>> I propose adding the following text:
>>
>> ... The BDFL may also initiate a PEP review, first notifying the
>> PEP author(s).
[Raymond Hettinger]
> Periodic updates to the parade-of-peps serves equally well.
Except that Guido doesn't have time to update the PEP Parade. He told
me so when I asked a few days ago.
> From these proposals and the annoucement earlier this week,
> I sense a desire to have fewer peps and to more rapidly get
> them out of the draft status.
Not quite. The desire is not to cull the weak, but to promote the
strong. The desire is to change already-implemented and
implicitly-accepted PEPs to from "Status: Draft" to "Status: Accepted"
or "Status: Final". See the "Accepted PEPs?" thread from a few days
ago; 9 "Draft" but already-implemented-for-2.3 PEPs were identified.
Their status lines ought to be changed, but the wording as written
implies that Guido and the PEP editors have to wait for authors to ask
for a review. We should be able to be more proactive.
New proposed addition:
... For PEPs that are pre-determined to be acceptable (e.g.,
their implementation has already been checked in) the BDFL may
also initiate a PEP review, first notifying the PEP author(s)
and giving them a chance to make revisions.
It is implied that Guido himself doesn't necessarily do all the
notifying or initiating, but may delegate to his loyal serfs. ;-)
> If someone wants
> to do a write-up and weather the ensuing firestorm, that is
> enough for me. If it has to sit for a few years before becoming
> obviously good or bad, that's fine too.
>
> Also, some ideas need time.
Good points; I agree completely. I have no problem leaving doomed (or
currently perceived as doomed) PEPs to remain in limbo until the
author(s) choose to seal their fate.
>> 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.)
Clarification: this paragraph addresses a completely separate issue than
the proposed addition above. I have sensed some confusion as to what
constitutes an acceptable PEP, and a hand-waving blurb giving a vague
definition seems useful. Of course, it would be great if we could make
the text more precise, but vagueness may have value here. Comments on
the wording are welcome.
> IOW, I like the process as it stands and am -1 on the
> amendment. It should be up to the pep author to
> decide when to stick his head in the guillotine to
> see what happens :)
What's your opinion now, post-clarifications? Please treat the two
parts separately.
-- David Goodger
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