On Sep 25, 2018, at 14:40, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > For me personally, I am not going to participate in any discussion about any > PEP until there is a published text to refer to, otherwise the discussion is > ripe for misunderstandings. If a PEP comes out which people disagree with and > want an alternative for I'm sure we can give them an opportunity to create a > tweaked PEP (but I also assume we will have a civil discussion first in hopes > of finding consensus first).
Agreed. Also, something we discussed at the sprints was the idea of each of the general governing PEPs will have certain knobs that can be tweaked. E.g. the exact number of folks on a committee, or their term limits, etc. It’s probably counterproductive to have competing PEPs that differ only in some of these details. Ultimately, it’s up to the PEP authors, but I think we’ll come to consensus much more quickly when we can use the PEPs to describe the general shape of governance, and work the details out in the subsequent conversations. At least, that’s how I see it working for the PEP I’ve promised to author. Cheers, -Barry
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ 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/
