On 19 July 2018 at 20:44, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > But the amount of discussion can be unbounded (considering people write PhD > theses on governance models and voting systems we could talk about this > stuff forever ;), so putting a schedule in place to help focus the > discussions can be beneficial. > > I'm +1 on Mariatta's schedule. That gives people more than 2 months to come > up with governance proposals and all of us to settle on how we will vote. > And if we say the month of November will be when voting is open then that > would give people more then 3 months notice of when the first vote will > occur.
As long as we understand that the deadline is intended to help focus discussion, and not to pressure a premature or rushed decision, I think Maraiatta's schedule is fine. If, coming up to that date, people feel the need for more discussion/review, it should be easy to extend the timescale. I'd like to think no-one is going to demand an extension simply to delay the process, and conversely I assume that if someone *does* ask for an extension, that request would be treated with respect and consideration. So while I think a concrete timescale will help focus the discussion, I don't think it should be viewed as set in stone (otherwise we'll just have yet another debate on what precise dates we should choose!) Paul _______________________________________________ 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/
