On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > In doing the detailed review of PEP 426 as BDFL-Delegate, I keep > noticing confusing problems with the current spec that mean I want to > become a *co-author* on the spec, rather than explaining to the > current authors the aspects I object to, until they produce a version > that I'm happy with (this is frustrating for the authors as well, > since several of the problems have been inherited from the previous > version of the spec rather than being new in the current version). > > Now, Guido's authored and accepted his own PEPs in the past, but to > date we've avoided letting anyone else do that. Since I *definitely* > want to co-author the new metadata PEP (mostly to address issues with > the version specifier section and to include the *rationale* for > changes, rather than merely listing them as previous versions of the > metadata PEPs have done), that means one of the following needs to > happen: > > - someone else volunteers to be BDFL-Delegate for PEP 426 (MvL, perhaps?) > - I get clear approval (perhaps from Guido?) to be both co-author > *and* BDFL-Delegate for PEP 426
I don't know or care much about PyPI metadata, so do what you feel is right. If you are uncomfortable being PEP-uncle *and* -author, find another author or another uncle. But since it doesn't affect the language or library, it's fine with me if you are both. :-) -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ 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
