On Monday, 17 October 2016 at 21:52:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
Thanks, David. Hope you're doing well! I was curious about one
thing - is there some scrutiny going into the PIPs before Guido
reviews them? Right now we seem to have a scalability issue;
some of the DIPs we have seem to be no more than a couple of
hours of work from the submitters. Writing a good review for a
submission that needs a lot of improvement is in many ways more
difficult than reviewing a well-argued DIP.
I was therefore wondering - given Python's popularity - whether
there is some filtering of PIPs prior to them being reviewed by
Guido.
PEPs (sorry I totally misspelled that before) have a editors who
are responsible for scrutinizing the PEP before and as far as I
understand are the ones who can request review from the BDFL
(Guido), who either takes the final decision or delegates it
(e.g. in cases were someone is better suited in the area to make
the call). Editors are trusted core committers that are
sponsoring an improvement.
The process is outline in great detail at
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/#pep-workflow and I
recommend reading it. Maybe we get some good ideas on how to
create a process that is scalable and results in the high quality
standards we have but are more suited towards the smaller
community we are.
We should start small and see how we find something that Walter,
you and contributors feel good about and improve from there:
might suit our needs.
