[Python-Dev] PEP: 576 Title: Rationalize Built-in function classes

[Guido van Rossum]

We should take the discussion about how and where PEP discussions should be
hosted off this thread and list.

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:59 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 23 May 2018 at 05:47, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Steve Dower <steve.dower at python.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22May2018 0741, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>>
>>>> ISTR there are plenty of PEPs that never get posted to python-ideas
>>>> because they are discussed on a separate list.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are often better venues for the initial discussion (such as
>>> security-sig, distutils-sig or datetime-sig), but I think that's orthogonal
>>> from posting the full text of a PEP.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think that the original rationale for posting the full text of a
>> PEP to a mailing list still applies. The raw text is on GitHub in the
>> python/peps repo, and the formatted text is on python.org. We're not
>> some kind of bureaucratic org that pretends to still live in the world of
>> paper and pencil.
>>
>
> The raw text being on Github rather than hg.python.org makes the
> rationale for archiving full copies on mail.python.org stronger, not
> weaker.
>
> That said, if the aim is to keep discussion in another place (such as
>>> github), you really don't want copies floating around any other mailing
>>> lists. Eventually I'd hope it comes through for final review though, as I'm
>>> sure a number of us are unlikely to click through to github unless we have
>>> a specific interest in the topic.
>>
>>
>>
>> IMO if you can't be bothered to click through on GitHub you forfeit your
>> right to comment. (Which isn't a right anyway, it's a privilege.)
>>
>
> I would never consider it an acceptable process restriction to require
> people to sign up for an account with a proprietary American software
> company in order to comment on the future of the Python programming
> language.
>
> If folks get more feedback than they have the ability to process in a
> short amount of time, then "Deferred" is a perfectly reasonable state to
> put a PEP into until they *do* have time to go through and account for the
> feedback - it isn't like it's a major disaster if we put an idea back on
> the shelf for a couple of months (or years!), let folks mull it over for a
> while, and then reconsider it later with fresh eyes.
>
> Cheers,
> Nick.
>
> --
> Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
>



-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20180523/7d7d6db6/attachment.html>