On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Apr 30, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >> Without a BDFL, I think we need a committee to make decisions, e.g. by >> majority vote amongst committers. > > I like Guido's idea. Just appoint have one of the experienced developers > who is independent of the proposal and have them be the final arbiter. > For example, Guido had earlier suggested that I decide the fate of the > "yield from" proposal because I had experience in the topic but was not > not personally involved in the proposal. > > Guido has set a good example for others to follow: > * let a conversation evolve until an outcome is self-evident > * or kill it early if it has no chance > * or if discussion teases out all of the meaningful thinking > but doesn't reach a clear conclusion, just make a choice > based on instinct > * have biases toward real-world use cases, towards ideas proven in > other languages (category killers), towards slow rates of language > evolution, and think about the long-term. > > It is better to have one experienced developer decide than to have > a committee. +1. BTW, Barry just asked me about PEP 3149 and we decided to leave the ultimate decision to Georg and Benjamin. That's about as large a committee I'd be comfortable to appoint for any specific PEP. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
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