Python -- (just) a successful experiment?

[A.M. Kuchling]

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 16:58:40 GMT, 
	Bengt Richter <bokr at oz.net> wrote:
> It occurs to me that we have the PEP process for core python, but no PEP process
> for the python app/lib environment. What about starting a PEEP process
> (Python Environment Enhancement Proposals) modeled on PEPs, where those motivated
> to formalize their pet projects or feature requests could collaborate to create
> a spec to document and guide development?

The PEP process could be used for some of this. There are existing
informational PEPs that aren't connected to the core language, but just
specify some interface for the community's use:

 IR  216  Docstring Format                            
 IF  248  Python Database API Specification v1.0      
 IF  249  Python Database API Specification v2.0      
 I   333  Python Web Server Gateway Interface v1.0    

Other PEPs describe how to modernize code (PEP 290) and hack the code (290,
339).  This is similar to RFCs: there are normative RFCs that actually
specify something, and informative RFCs that publish information about an
experimental protocol or system.

PEPs would be especially good for things like WSGI that are intended to be
supported by many different projects; it's less useful to document how a pet
project works.

--amk