RetroSearch Browse

Sun Feb 3 07:37:54 CET 2013 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-February/123802.html

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> In doing the detailed review of PEP 426 as BDFL-Delegate, I keep
> noticing confusing problems with the current spec that mean I want to
> become a *co-author* on the spec, rather than explaining to the
> current authors the aspects I object to, until they produce a version
> that I'm happy with (this is frustrating for the authors as well,
> since several of the problems have been inherited from the previous
> version of the spec rather than being new in the current version).
>
> Now, Guido's authored and accepted his own PEPs in the past, but to
> date we've avoided letting anyone else do that. Since I *definitely*
> want to co-author the new metadata PEP (mostly to address issues with
> the version specifier section and to include the *rationale* for
> changes, rather than merely listing them as previous versions of the
> metadata PEPs have done), that means one of the following needs to
> happen:
>
> - someone else volunteers to be BDFL-Delegate for PEP 426 (MvL, perhaps?)
> - I get clear approval (perhaps from Guido?) to be both co-author
> *and* BDFL-Delegate for PEP 426

I don't know or care much about PyPI metadata, so do what you feel is
right. If you are uncomfortable being PEP-uncle *and* -author, find
another author or another uncle. But since it doesn't affect the
language or library, it's fine with me if you are both. :-)

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-February/123802.html below:

[Python-Dev] BDFL delegation for PEP 426 (PyPI metadata 1.3)