On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 14:13, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote:
> > It may be that people are concerned that if the PEP will be presented > > as a decision being made, the opportunity for meaninful input will > > have passed. > > That is not the idea of the PEP process. Instead, it works like this: > an enhancement is proposed, and people can discuss it and give feedback. > They can indicate support, or suggest improvements, or indicate > rejection. After some revisions, the PEP is proposed to the BDFL, who > will pronounce. Traditionally, the BDFL has also considered the > community view (unless he has a strong opinion on his own). > > > Could you clarify for me: how binding will your PEP be? ie, will it > > be closer to a recommendation, or will the final PEP be a final > > decision about what will (or will not) happen? > > If the PEP process is followed (which I recommend it is), then it will > be a decision. Notice, however, that the PEP can be rejected (and > several PEPs *have* been rejected in the past, including some I wrote). > > I'm strongly in favor of this process, even though I'm also opposed > to the likely proposition of the PEP (namely, to use something else > than subversion - else there would not need to be a PEP). It is > *very important* that the PEP provides a complete specification right > from the start, or else discussion will revolve around the open issues, > with no conclusion. So I'd rather have the PEP suggest that we switch > to bzr (say), so that I can vote that down, instead of giving options > in its final form. It ain't going to be wishy-washy; there will be a very obvious suggestion of what to switch to if a switch were to take place. -Brett
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
