[Python-ideas] PEP feedback loop (with tracker account)

[Andrew Barnert]

On Mar 26, 2014, at 1:07, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Andrew Barnert <abarnert at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 2014, at 15:46, Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> No.  What is useful is to keep the "Post-History" header up to
>>> date, which refers people to the python-dev threads where all the
>>> discussion and "voting" takes place.
>>> 
>>> I could also imagine adding direct links to the archive; however
>>> many PEPs already add references in the text where appropriate.
>> 
>> Having someone dedicate themselves to linking in all significant -ideas and -dev discussions (and relevant blog posts, etc.) would be incredibly useful.
> 
> The goal to link threads and PEP versions is reachable at the next
> iteration once status per person is implemented. The benefit from
> the system is that you don't need to dedicate a person to do this.
> 
>> A +/- vote is meaningless, and expecting people to summarize their mailing-list discussions in a single post on the PEP site doesn't seem likely to capture sufficient interest on any but the most contentious PEPs.
> 
> It is not a post. It is status per revision. The difference between
> post and status is that status gives immediate overview (diffstat)
> while post needs English skills + time to bring an up-to-date
> image in you head. So, status is declarative and can be processed
> by machines. Post is procedural and requires manual human labor.

The other difference is that nobody cares about a count of +/- status, so it doesn't really matter how easy it is to collect. If someone is trying to decide whether or not the PEP discussion is missing his point of view, a vote isn't going to tell him that. If Guido is trying to decide whether to approve or reject the PEP, he's not going to go by the vote. So what's the point of it?