PEP: Procedure for Adding New Modules (please comment)

[Martijn Faassen]

Bruce Sass <bsass at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
> <...>
>> Maintainer(s)
>>
>>     All contributions to the standard library need one or more
>>     maintainers. This can be an individual, but frequently is a group
>>     of people such as for instance the XML-SIG. Groups may subdivide
>>     maintenance tasks among themselves. One ore more maintainers shall
>>     be the _head maintainer_ (usually this is also the main
>>     developer). Head maintainers are convenient people the integrators
>>     can address if they want to resolve specific issues, such as the
>>     ones detailed later in this document.

> With the maintainers of the existing library being the group of core
> developers?

What happens with the existing library is strictly outside the scope of this
PEP, though I could of course broaden it. I'd *like* to say something
like that, yes. Perhaps I ought to.

[snip]
> Will maintainers be given access to the servers, if so then
> there should be set procedure to verify who they are (email don't cut
> it!)

Hm, do I want to get into technical details of how maintainers can be
contacted? I think email should be enough; the maintainer should notify
the integrators if his or her email address changes! Perhaps there could
be a maintainer-SIG or something like that. If a maintainer cannot
be contacted easily then that's just a bad job by the maintainer, right?
(Perhaps there should be a note that the integrators have the right to
reject a maintainer that's inactive and look for another one..?)

[snip]
>>     Should the current standard library be subdivided among such
>>     maintainers? Many parts already have (informal) maintainers; it
>>     may be good to make this more explicit.

> That would be up to the group currently responsible for them.

You mean PythonLabs/python-dev? (along with such other groups like the
XML-SIG for the xml modules).

>>     Perhaps there is a better word for 'contribution'; the word
>>     'contribution' may not imply enough that the process (of
>>     development and maintenance) does not stop after the contribution
>>     is accepted and integrated into the library.

> "contribution" accurately describes the relationship of the work
> to the standard library, and as soon as someone starts looking into
> contributing the word "maintainer" is gonna smack'em in the forehead.

Yes, I think it's okay as well.

Thanks for the feedback!

Martijn
-- 
History of the 20th Century: WW1, WW2, WW3?
No, WWW -- Could we be going in the right direction?