On 27 March 2014 12:11, Eli Bendersky <eli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Benjamin Peterson <benja...@python.org> > wrote: >> I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not. > > YMMV but IMHO this is a good thing. PEPs provide a single point of reference > to a discussion that would otherwise be spread over multiple centi-threads > (not that PEPs don't create centi-threads, but they outlive them in a way).
>From my point of view, the primary purpose of the PEP process is to provide a way for us to finally say "yes" to controversial proposals that have valid arguments against them. When things are obviously good ideas that don't impose a big maintenance burden, nobody really objects if we skip the PEP process (that isn't always a good thing - directory and zipfile execution flew under the radar for years because it was such a neat idea that Guido approved it directly in the issue, and then we forgot to mention it in the 2.6 What's New). Some ideas aren't obviously good, or a suitable API isn't obvious, or they impose a major additional maintenance burden, or they require a change to our development policies. In those cases, the PEP process allows us to collectively ask the question "Is this worth the hassle?". Cases like the restoration of binary interpolation support, or my proposal to backport network security features, also showcase how the PEP process can be used to refine the *question* so the PEP champion is forced to figure out what they *really* want, and propose a solution that clearly solves that specific problem, rather than overreaching and asking for more than is needed. (This is also reflected in the relative fates of the current matrix multiplication proposal and previous more general proposals) With the introduction of the BDFL-Delegate system, and then the decision last year to give the "Discussions-To" header a bit more force and allow groups like the Python Packaging Authority to make use of the PEP process independently of python-dev, the PEP process is also becoming more streamlined, making it more effective in its role as a tool for establishing consensus - there's less need to convince someone to drop a veto without a PEP, as the PEP process itself is getting less painful. Most of the time when I hear people say "the PEP process is too difficult", I eventually find that what they really mean is "learning the kinds of things that python-dev are likely to be worried about, and ensuring that the PEP adequately addresses their concerns, and listening to feedback, and reconsidering what I actually want, and revising my proposal, such that they eventually say yes is too time consuming". Helping people to learn exactly how to navigate that process is actually one of the main roles of python-ideas these days, although we don't do a good job (at all) of advertising that fact. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
