On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Chris Jerdonek <chris.jerdo...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Chris Jerdonek < > chris.jerdo...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> > wrote: > >> > > >> > And please do not CC the peps mailing list on discussions. It should > >> > only be > >> > used to mail in new PEPs or acceptable patches to PEPs. > >> > >> PEP 1 should perhaps be clarified if the above is the case. > >> Currently, PEP 1 says all PEP-related e-mail should be sent there: > >> > >> "The PEP editors assign PEP numbers and change their status. Please > >> send all PEP-related email to <p...@python.org> (no cross-posting > >> please). Also see PEP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow below." > >> > >> as well as: > >> > >> "A PEP editor must subscribe to the <p...@python.org> list. All > >> PEP-related correspondence should be sent (or CC'd) to > >> <p...@python.org> (but please do not cross-post!)." > >> > >> (Incidentally, the statement not to cross-post seems contradictory if > >> a PEP-related e-mail is also sent to python-dev, for example.) > > > > > > But it very clearly states to NOT cross-post which is exactly what > Anatoly > > did and that is what I take issue with the most. I personally don't see > any > > confusion with the wording. It clearly states that if you are a PEP > author > > you should mail the peps editors and NOT cross-post. If you are an > editor, > > make sure any emailing you do with an individual CCs the list but do NOT > > cross-post. > > I don't disagree that he shouldn't have cross-posted. I was just > pointing out that the language should be clarified. What's confusing > is that the current language implies that one shouldn't send any > PEP-related e-mails to any mailing list other than peps@. In > particular, how can one discuss PEPs on python-dev or python-ideas > without violating that language (e.g. this e-mail which is related to > PEP 1)? It is probably just a matter of clarifying what "PEP-related" > means. > I'm just not seeing the confusion, sorry. And we have never really had any confusion over this wording before. If you want to send a patch to tweak the wording to me more clear then please go ahead and I will consider it, but I'm not worried enough about it to try to come up with some rewording myself.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com