[python-committers] Organizing an informational PEP on project governance options (was Re: Transfer of power)

[Carol Willing]

> On Jul 13, 2018, at 5:15 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
> 
> On Jul 13, 2018, at 04:31, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I volunteer to co-author such a PEP. But I'm not up to doing it on my
>> own. So... who else wants to be a co-author? (I'm not going to
>> pressure anyone, but Brett, Mariatta, and Carol, please know that your
>> names were the first ones that jumped to my mind when thinking about
>> this :-).)
> 
> Count me in.

Me too.

> 
> Procedurally, I think an informational PEP numbered in sequence is a good place for the “design” of our governance.

I've been debating all day how to respond to this informational PEP re: governance. While I think it's great to cull good practices from other communities, I'm not sure that Python really fits into any existing governance that other projects use. IMHO Python is one of the healthiest language/community in the open source world. There's a reason that the saying "I came for the language and stayed for the community" exists.

There's also a reason the Zen of Python has been so popular for so long. It works.

While this may be an unconventional idea, I would love to look at governance through the lens of these 2 universally held beliefs as we begin to "design" our goverance (Thank you Barry for phrasing so well).

>  Once we’ve settled on a plan, we would capture the operational procedures in a new process PEP (I propose PEP 2), which would be our working document moving forward.  I think it’s pretty much a certainty that whatever we come up with initially will undergo changes as time goes on and we gain experience.  PEP 2 would then be the living document for our language governance process.

Sounds great.


> 
> -Barry
>