On 24 July 2016 at 05:15, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is that reasonable? Does it need an update to PEP 1 to cover it? If > so, should I post a PR for PEP 1? Or is it obvious enough to be > assumed without needing the bureaucracy of updating PEP 1?
One of the advantages of moving the PEPs repo to GitHub is that updating PEP 1 is no longer as painful as it used to be: you can post a PR with the suggested changes, and as long as python-dev is generally amenable, approving the change/clarification in the process is just a matter of clicking the big green merge button :) In this case, I think the key point of the Discussions-To header is that it's a way for the BDFL-Delegate to say "If you want your opinion on this topic to be heard by the responsible BDFL-Delegate, express it *here*". Historically, that location was always python-dev (and that's still the default for any PEP without a BDFL-Delegate assigned). Then we tweaked it a few years ago to say that for topics that don't result in a change specifically to CPython or the standard library, the final disposition of the PEP may take place on another python.org mailing list (specifically so packaging interoperability PEPs could be handled on distutils-sig, with folks from python-dev that wanted to participate in those discussions signing up to both lists). This time, I think a suitable tweak may be that while initial high level discussion should still take place on python-dev (or the appropriate corresponding venue), Guido or the BDFL-Delegate may direct discussion of the finer details to a GitHub PR if the mailing list consensus is that the overall PEP is a good idea, but there are some specifics to work out before the PEP can be accepted. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/