On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 at 11:37 Tim Peters <tim.pet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Tim] > >> > If there are 3 Elders [snip] >> > > [Łukasz Langa] > > It looks like the number 3 is popular in this context. What makes it so >> attractive? >> > > Likely because it was the first specific non-insane number someone > mentioned. It helps to be concrete, but I don't know that anyone is wedded > to 3. > > >> I see a bunch of problems with such a low number, like the ability for a >> single corporation to take over the design process of Python by employing >> just two of the three members (consistently voting over the third one). > > > Perhaps then you don't want a "supreme court" at all. We've been living > for decades with the possibility that a single corporation could buy off > Guido. Would it really help to change 3 to 5? Then Evil Corp only needs > to buy off 3 - but the larger the number, the more likely Evil Corp will > get some votes in its favor without needing to pay. > > If semi-dictators are part of the New Order at all, they need to be > trusted a whole lot (although I suggested a mechanism for impeachment too). > > > >> 3 also has high likelihood of ties if one of the members abstains. > > > I don't care about that. How often did Guido abstain? it's an Elder's > _job_ to make potentially unpopular decisions. If one abstained without > extraordinarily solid reason, I'd move to impeach them - they're not doing > the job in that case. > > If they tied, that's fine too. Ties favor the status quo (same as if the > proposed change had been rejected). For that reason, I'm not even wedded > to an odd number. > That's a good point. Since this is typically going to be a yes/no question instead of an A/B question, ties that go in favour of the status quo aren't a stalemate issue. -Brett > > > >> And so on. >> > > Likewise in the other direction. For example, how many "extremely > trusted" people can we even get to volunteer for a contentious, long-term, > non-paying job? I don't know. "3" probably started with the first person > here who suggested specific names and could only come up with 3 ;-) > > > Taking a step back, before we talk names, term limits and even numbers of >> council members, Python needs a "constitution" which will codify what the >> council is and how it functions. > > > "Feedback loops" - all decisions feed into each other, in all directions. > For example, the number of people on the council has real effects on what > it's _possible_ for it do, and on how it functions. It doesn't hurt to > think about everything at once ;-) > > > Barry calls it PEP 2 but I'd like to understand who is supposed to author >> it and who is supposed to accept it. > > >> Any committer is in a position to suggest parts of or the entirety of >> such a document. Otherwise we create a fractal problem of who and how >> decides on who shouId be writing it. Ultimately we are volunteers, the ones >> who step up and do the work. >> > > Sure! > > Ideally Guido would accept the PEP but I'm not sure if he is willing to. > > > His initial message here seemed very clear that he wants us to "figure > something out for yourselves". He's tired of the battles, and perhaps you > have to be as old as him (as I was 4 years ago) to grasp what "bone weary" > really means ;-) > > >> If that is indeed the case then how should this be done so that the >> document is universally accepted by all committers? >> > > Perhaps it won't be - after all, much of the point to a dictator-workalike > is that universal acceptance is a rare thing in real life. Guido left us > with an interesting puzzle to solve :-) > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ >
_______________________________________________ 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/