[Python-Dev] Two small PEP ideas

[Nick Coghlan]

Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> When PEP 3147 was accepted, I had a few folks ask that this be recorded in the
>> PEP by including a link to the BDFL pronouncement email.  I realized that
>> there's no formal way to express this in a PEP, and many PEPs in fact don't
>> record more than the fact that it was accepted.  I'd like to propose
>> officially adding an Accepted: header which should include a URL to the email
>> or other web resource where the PEP is accepted.  I've come as close as
>> possible to this (without modifying the supporting scripts or PEP 1) in PEP
>> 3147:
>>
>>    http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3147/
>>
>> I'd be willing to update things if there are no objections.
> 
> I'd rather not build a single point of failure into the process.
> Instead of insisting on BDFL pronouncement, the community should
> switch do something like "last call for objections." There should also
> be a timeline so that unproductive discussion can't be dragged on
> forever.

I believe the more important part of Barry's suggested change here is
requiring a link to the archived message (usually from python-dev) where
the PEP was accepted (be it directly by you as BDFL, or by consensus
from a "sufficient" number of core developers). This will likely also
help with reminding people to announce on python-dev when PEPs are
accepted by consensus (or by you) somewhere like PyCon or a sprint.

>> I would not mandate that we go back and update all previous PEPs for either of
>> these ideas.  We'd adopt them moving forward and allow anyone who's motivated
>> to backfill information opportunistically.
> 
> SGTM.

+1 to both ideas from me, too.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------