Excerpts from Antoine Pitrou's message of 2018-07-20 09:49:01 +0200: > > Le 20/07/2018 à 02:51, Ethan Furman a écrit : > > My first issue with this model is, as discussed above, a lack of a > > consistent vision. A BDFL is not just there to say, > > "this PEP is accepted," but also to say, "change this one piece here, > > remove that piece there, add this" -- definitely > > not something easily done by 100+ voters. > > > > My second issue is qualifications: there are plenty of PEPs that I either > > have no interest in or whose field I have no > > experience with, and my voting on those PEPs would be nonsensical; when > > that happens to a BDFL s/he appoints a BDFOP. > > > > My third issue is, quite simply, time. Working on patches takes time; > > reviewing PRs takes time; and being a good voting > > citizen takes lots and lots of time -- and we're all volunteers. Time is > > at a premium. > > This is true. But it's a problem for the BDFL even more. Our ex-BDFL > resigned because of pressure and exhaustion. Why would another BDFL > fare better? > > Victor pointed out something I didn't know: that several prominent core > devs (him, Brett Cannon) recently suffered from > breakdown/burnout/depression. > > I find the PEP-delegate to be a powerful concept. Why wouldn't *every* > PEP have a PEP-delegate? This way we don't need a BDFL anymore. We can > discuss how to nominate PEP-delegates (Nick had an interesting proposal).
+1 Doug _______________________________________________ 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/
