is this a response to other thread about how/where to store specs and PEPs? If not, what in this email are you responding to?
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > If it’s more useful we could also just use an RFC repository like Rust > does instead of doing a mishmash between having Python using PEPs and > packaging using PEPs. > > On September 4, 2015 at 11:42:21 PM, Nick Coghlan (ncogh...@gmail.com) > wrote: > > We've got to a point where the original standing delegations to myself > > and Richard Jones to act as BDFL-Delegates for metadata > > interoperability and pypi.python.org related aren't scaling > > adequately, so given Paul's recent delegation for PEP 470, and Donald > > handling PEP 503 directly, it seems like an opportune time to put > > something in writing about that. > > > > For PyPA/distutils-sig specific PEPs, we've effectively adopted the > > following approach to assigning BDFL-Delegates in resolving PEPs 470 > > and 503: > > > > ================================= > > Whenever a new PEP is put forward on distutils-sig, any PyPA core > > reviewer that believes they are suitably experienced to make the final > > decision on that PEP may offer to serve as the BDFL's delegate (or > > "PEP czar") for that PEP. If their self-nomination is accepted by the > > other PyPA core reviewer, the lead PyPI maintainer and the lead > > CPython representative on distutils-sig, then they will have the > > authority to approve (or reject) that PEP. > > ================================= > > > > And translating the nominated roles to the folks currently filling > > them: "lead PyPI maintainer" = Donald Stufft; "lead CPython > > representative on distutils-sig" = me. > > > > "PyPA core reviewer" isn't a term we've previously used, but I'm > > aiming to capture "has approval rights for pull requests to one or > > more of the PyPA maintained source code or documentation repos". > > > > Some further details for the benefit of folks not aware of the relevant > history: > > > > * a couple of years ago, we amended PEP 1 to give the "Discussions-To" > > header some additional force for PEPs which don't directly affect > > CPython: """PEP review and resolution may also occur on a list other > > than python-dev (for example, distutils-sig for packaging related PEPs > > that don't immediately affect the standard library). In this case, the > > "Discussions-To" heading in the PEP will identify the appropriate > > alternative list where discussion, review and pronouncement on the PEP > > will occur.""" > > > > * we *didn't* update the section about assignment of BDFL-Delegates. > > Instead, I received a general delegation for packaging metadata > > interoperability PEPs, and Richard Jones received one for > > pypi.python.org related PEPs > > > > * Richard subsequently passed the latter delegation on to Donald, > > since Donald had taken over as the lead maintainer for PyPI > > > > The section in PEP 1 for CPython BDFL-Delegates reads as follows: > > ================================= > > However, whenever a new PEP is put forward, any core developer that > > believes they are suitably experienced to make the final decision on > > that PEP may offer to serve as the BDFL's delegate (or "PEP czar") for > > that PEP. If their self-nomination is accepted by the other core > > developers and the BDFL, then they will have the authority to approve > > (or reject) that PEP. > > ================================= > > > > This process can be appropriately described as "volunteering to be > > blamed" - if a PEP from a less experienced contributor subsequently > > proves to be a mistake, that's on the BDFL-Delegate for saying "Yes", > > not on the PEP author for proposing it. Mostly though, it's so there's > > someone to have the final say on the fiddly little details that go > > into getting from a general concept to an actual implementation, > > without getting mired down in design-by-committee on every incidental > > detail. > > > > As PEP authors, we'll also often ask someone else specifically to > > volunteer as BDFL-Delegate, because we trust their judgement in > > relation to the topic at hand (e.g. I asked Martin von Löwis to be > > BDFL-Delegate for the original ensurepip PEP because I knew he was > > skeptical of the idea, so a design that passed muster with him was > > likely to have suitably addressed the ongoing maintainability > > concerns. Guido did something similar when he asked Mark Shannon to be > > BDFL-Delegate for PEP 484's gradual typing). > > > > Regards, > > Nick. > > > > P.S. It's becoming clear to me that I should probably write a > > companion PEP to PEP 1 that specifically describes distutils-sig's > > usage of the PEP process (and how that differs from the normal CPython > > processes), but hopefully this post provides sufficient clarification > > for now. > > > > -- > > Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia > > _______________________________________________ > > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig > > > > ----------------- > Donald Stufft > PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 > DCFA > > > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
