On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 03:25:14PM +0000, Kristján Valur Jónsson wrote about the PEP process: > > > How about acknowledging that these waters are dark and murky and help > > > making things better? > > > > Well, how about? If Anatoly has a concrete proposal, surely he can propose a > > patch to make things better. > > Which is what he did. And instead of helpful ideas on how to improve his patch, > the issue is closed. The acolytes have spoken. As the first-time author of a PEP (450), I did not find that the waters were dark and murky, and I certainly did not feel that the "acolytes" tried to shut me out, or shut themselves in as you suggest. Nobody held my hand through the process of writing the PEP, but people pointed me in the right direction and were tolerant of my newbie mistakes. The PEP process is quite well documented in the PEPs themselves, for somebody who is willing to do a bit of reading. Could the process be more clear? Could the existing docs be improved? Of course the answers to these questions are Yes, nothing is perfect. But overall, I found the PEP process to be less painful than I had feared. -- Steven
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