On 13Jul2018 1600, Larry Hastings wrote:
I disagree. My proposal for Python's Council Of Elders is partially
based on the Supreme Court Of The United States. For example, SCOTUS
judges are appointed for life, and I think PCOE members should be too.
When SCOTUS renders a decision:
* the deliberation is held in private, but then
* the judges cast their votes,
* the "winning" side writes up the official decision, called "the
Court's opinion",
* and any member may contribute their own individual opinion,
concurring /or/ dissenting, and finally
* all votes and opinions contributed to the decision are made public.
This seems like a sensible approach for the PCOE to me too. I prefer
more transparency in governance generally, and as a member of the
community governed by this body I'd prefer more rather than less insight
into the process and the thinking that went into the decision. I don't
think it's a requirement for the PCOE to present as a unified front or
to work in secret for them to be supportive of each other and of the
body's decision.
Sunlight, not darkness
I agree with Larry, at least until the point at which we see "the
public" aggressively idolising or demonising those members of the
Council with whom they agree/disagree. Then I'll change my mind :)
(For those who are unfamiliar with the phenomenon I'm referencing, wait
for SCOTUS to decide _anything_ and then go look at American Twitter.)
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
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/
