Why "from __future__" stinks; a counter-offer

[Tim Rowe]

In article <mailman.985029808.7088.python-list at python.org>, 
jeremy at alum.mit.edu (Jeremy Hylton) wrote:

> >>>>> "A" == Aahz Maruch <aahz at panix.com> writes:
> 
>   A> In article <slrn9bcg72.9q8.scarblac at pino.selwerd.nl>, Remco
>   A> Gerlich <scarblac at pino.selwerd.nl> wrote:
>   >> John W. Baxter <jwbnews at scandaroon.com> wrote in
>   >> comp.lang.python:
>   >>>
>   >>> For the future, the time to complain about PEP contents is when
>   >>> the PEP is posted, not after it has been posted, discussed,
>   >>> implemented, and the result distributed.
>   >>
>   >> And the place to complain is the Python-DEV list, which is not
>   >> public, although everyone can post to it and everyone can read it
>   >> using some archives...
> 
>   A> Officially, complaints need only be posted to c.l.py.  It's not
>   A> clear to me at this point what the True Practice is, but sending
>   A> e-mail to the PEP champion is supposed to work best of all.  (Not
>   A> all PEP creators are on python-dev.)
> 
> Discussion on comp.lang.python is fine, although it would usually help
> to cc the PEP author.  If there are legitimate complaints posted to
> c.l.py and the PEP author ignores them, I expect someone will cry
> foul.  Tim reads c.l.py as devotedly as anyone.  Barry and I try to
> keep up, too.
> 
> Jeremy

But there's part of the problem; egoless PEP writing is as hard as egoless 
programming, and having come up with a solution the author of that 
solution is bound to have some emotional involvement in that solution. 
There have been (rightly IMHO) howls of protest about __future__, but Tim 
has said it's ok for him, routinely dismisses all protests, presumably 
because he genuinely doesn't understand what our problem is, and he tells 
us it's going in anyway. Can you see why we're not all convinced that the 
PEP process is any help to us?