Aahz writes: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > > I hope we can learn from this. > > I'm not thrilled with adding more process just because we had a problem > here, and the only obvious solution I see is to require a PEP every time > a module is added. Based on what I've seen of this discussion so far, I > think that cure would at this time be worse than the disease. +1 A couple of people commented that they didn't say anything because they were really busy. I don't think there's much you can do about that, unless the time machine can be used to unmutate the swine flu! FWIW I also agree with Martin's assessment of the thread in the tracker that it looked like there was only one person strongly opposed. Mostly an unfortunate combination of circumstances. One thing I would recommend is that while inclusion is not a matter of voting, people who are recognized as domain experts on Python-Dev *should* try to add their "+1" or "-1" early. Especially if they don't expect to have time to participate actively in discussion. After all, they can always change their assessment based on either changes or as a response to a persuasive lobby, precisely because it's not a vote.
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