Re: [python-committers] Reminder of BDFL succession timeline + CFP

[Ronald Oussoren via python-committers]

> On 2 Aug 2018, at 01:06, Yury Selivanov  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:44 PM Mariatta Wijaya
>  wrote:
>> 
> 
>> Currently any undecided PEP is stalled, and no one can pronounce on them.
> 
> And maybe that's OK for a few months? I don't recall Guido ever
> accepting PEPs promptly. :)  Setting strict deadlines really seems
> like a last-resort option.

That, and it might be acceptable to start with a consensus based model for 
accepting PEPs at first. That would help in getting it clearer what we really 
need going forward (which as several people have stated is more than just 
deciding on PEPs).  That would mean that contentious PEPs would have to wait 
longer, but that isn’t necessarily a bad idea.

FWIW I agree with Nathaniel and Marc-Andre.

Ronald

___
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/

Re: [python-committers] List of all core developers

[M.-A. Lemburg]

On 02.08.2018 03:24, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> On 8/1/2018 8:32 PM, Mariatta Wijaya wrote:
>>     I think it would also be a good idea to include core developers
>>     of other Python implementations in such a document, in
>>     separate sections, e.g. for Jython, IronPython, PyPy,
>>     Stackless, etc
>>
>>
>> Hmm, I don't think it is should be our (CPython) responsibility to
>> keep track and maintain the list of the core devs of alternate Python
>> implementations. Don't they have their own community / website? They
>> have their own repo, bug tracker, governance model, and everything,
>> right?
> 
> Agreed. We have a hard enough time keeping track of our own core
> developers.

I don't really think we have a hard time doing this. The only
problem is that we never sat down and actually properly recorded
this in one place.

Other projects will, of course, have their own websites, but since
Python is more than just CPython, it would be great to include those
other developers in an official list as well. It would be up for
for the other teams to maintain their lists.

That said, this part is lower priority than the CPython core
developer listing.

> For our core devs, can't we just say that the CPython core devs are
> those with commit bits on the CPython repo? I realize that will
> eliminate some people who have been core developers and never moved to
> github, but if they bring it to our attention, we can add them easily
> enough.
As discussed before, being a core developer is a status you
gain and never lose. There is a clear difference between have
commit rights to the (current) repo and this status.

What I am after, is a list of core developers, not a list of
people with their keys on github (or where ever we move in the
future), since this list is not about a technical status, but rather
a social one.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Aug 02 2018)
>>> Python Projects, Coaching and Consulting ...  http://www.egenix.com/
>>> Python Database Interfaces ...   http://products.egenix.com/
>>> Plone/Zope Database Interfaces ...   http://zope.egenix.com/


::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs :::

   eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
   Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
   http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
  http://www.malemburg.com/

___
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/

Re: [python-committers] Reminder of BDFL succession timeline + CFP

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 05:29:00PM -0700, Mariatta Wijaya wrote:

> Please don't misunderstand my wanting to set up a deadlines and process as
> wanting to rush things.
> I'm open to extend the dates, and even wait another year if we need to.

Please no. Leaving things in limbo for a handful of months is one thing, 
a year or more is not. In a year, we will have completely lost all 
momentum on this. Deciding on a model for Python's future ought not to 
be an endurance competition, where the winner is the one who can wait 
the longest until everyone else has moved on.

Failing to choose a model to drive the future of Python in a reasonable 
time is a choice in itself. If folks want to actively propose a policy 
of (temporary or permanent) stability (a.k.a. stagnation) for the Python 
language, let them do so. I'm sure that would be popular to many people. 
It might even win a democratic vote. Dragging this process out for a 
year or more is, de facto, such a policy (regardless of whether it was 
intended as such) and such a policy ought to be decided openly, not 
accidentally or by stealth.


> Or do folks want to come up with a completely different process than what
> I've proposed?
> 
> In the end, I just want to know whether we will come to decision before
> 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, .. ?

Indeed. A hard deadline concentrates the mind. It doesn't need to be 
tomorrow, I think your choosen dates are a great balance, neither too 
quick nor too drawn out.

If Python is still rudderless by Christmas, I think we have failed.



-- 
Steve
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] Reminder of BDFL succession timeline + CFP

[Paul Moore]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 01:58, Yury Selivanov  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:29 PM Mariatta Wijaya
>  wrote:
> [..]
> > Please don't misunderstand my wanting to set up a deadlines and process as 
> > wanting to rush things.
>
> Absolutely, I understand, I didn't want to imply that "[name] is
> rushing the process". Sorry if I sounded this way. I do have an
> impression, though, that a large population of core devs is OK with
> deadlines and the other sizable population doesn't understand why we
> need a strict schedule right now.

I think this is an important point. I'm also -1 on a strict timetable
here - I agree with the points Marc-Andre and Nathaniel made, and I
don't want to see us rushing into a decision.

It actually strikes me that the disparity here (with some people
wanting to keep the process moving and get something sorted so we can
get back to normal, and others wanting to let things take their time
and not force a decision simply because "we need to decide") is an
excellent test case for how we make decisions in the future. If we
can't reach a mutually satisfactory agreement on how to move forward
on this, I don't have high hopes for the possibility of our choice of
governance model being acceptable to everyone.

> > I'm open to extend the dates, and even wait another year if we need to.
> > Or do folks want to come up with a completely different process than what 
> > I've proposed?
> >
> > In the end, I just want to know whether we will come to decision before 
> > 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, .. ?

At the moment, I'm not even sure I want to know that much. For now,
what I want to know is how things are going to feel now that we don't
have Guido acting as BDFL. That's going to take time to assess, but
until we have done that, I don't see how we (as a community) can have
any sort of good idea about what sort of governance works for us.

What I'd like to understand from the people advocating a fixed
timetable and agreed dates, is what *actual* problem does fixing dates
solve? Are bpo discussions being held up for lack of a BDFL? Are
people not committing changes? Certainly we're not accepting PEPs at
the moment, but it's not like PEPs work on a rapid timescale anyway -
and if the problem is that without a BDFL, the discussions feel
directionless, then that's a *specific* problem we can solve without
needing to agree a governance model (it's the "guiding discussions"
aspect of Guido's role, as opposed to the "BDFL" part).

Paul
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] Reminder of BDFL succession timeline + CFP

[Paul Moore]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 08:50, Steven D'Aprano  wrote:

> Indeed. A hard deadline concentrates the mind. It doesn't need to be
> tomorrow, I think your choosen dates are a great balance, neither too
> quick nor too drawn out.

But it also encourages people (particularly people with limited free
time) to rush decisions, and focus on "getting something done in
time", rather than "doing the right thing". Balancing those two
pressures is not easy, and the balance point varies significantly
between individuals.

> If Python is still rudderless by Christmas, I think we have failed.

Do you really consider Python "rudderless" at the moment? I only
really see two threads (excluding this one ;-)) that could give that
impression - "None-aware operators", where the discussion was
deliberately re-opened when Guido stepped down, to have a debate in
the absence of a BDFL (a decision which I personally feel was
ill-advised, but which IMO excludes it from any consideration in this
context) and the discussion on optimising PyCFunction (which is highly
technical, and has 2 specialists disagreeing - that's pretty much
guaranteed to drag on for a while). Most things are carrying on as
usual (with a certain level of people wondering what will happen, but
not in a way that's blocking activity).

I honestly think that describing the current situation as "rudderless"
and a "failure" if it carries on, is a pretty big exaggeration. Maybe
at worst, Python 3.8 will be relatively light on new features, but
that's not necessarily a bad thing (and yes, I understand that's a
decision by inaction. but personally I'm OK with it). Not so much a
moratorium, as "taking a breath".

Paul
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] List of all core developers

[Eric V. Smith]

On 8/2/2018 3:32 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:

On 02.08.2018 03:24, Eric V. Smith wrote:

On 8/1/2018 8:32 PM, Mariatta Wijaya wrote:

     I think it would also be a good idea to include core developers
     of other Python implementations in such a document, in
     separate sections, e.g. for Jython, IronPython, PyPy,
     Stackless, etc


Hmm, I don't think it is should be our (CPython) responsibility to
keep track and maintain the list of the core devs of alternate Python
implementations. Don't they have their own community / website? They
have their own repo, bug tracker, governance model, and everything,
right?


Agreed. We have a hard enough time keeping track of our own core
developers.


I don't really think we have a hard time doing this. The only
problem is that we never sat down and actually properly recorded
this in one place.


I was specifically thinking of a way to stay in touch with core devs, or 
more specifically a way to send them email. In the past, before we moved 
to github, I took it upon myself to find email addresses (current or 
not) for all core devs, and I gave up without much success.


I agree that we could probably come up with a list of names for people 
who have been given the "core dev" status.



For our core devs, can't we just say that the CPython core devs are
those with commit bits on the CPython repo? I realize that will
eliminate some people who have been core developers and never moved to
github, but if they bring it to our attention, we can add them easily
enough.

As discussed before, being a core developer is a status you
gain and never lose. There is a clear difference between have
commit rights to the (current) repo and this status.


Agreed. Again, this was in the (poorly conveyed) context of getting 
email addresses for them, or at least being able to contact them.


Eric
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] View logs on VSTS?

[Victor Stinner]

Hi,

The error may be related to https://bugs.python.org/issue33782

I understood that VSTS has troubles when a PR gets a new commit while
VSTS is running tests on the previous commit.

Victor

2018-08-02 0:00 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou :
>
> Hello,
>
> I may be missing something, but I fail to view the "tests" log in this
> failed CI build:
> https://python.visualstudio.com/cpython/_build/results?buildId=20701&view=logs
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
> ___
> 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/
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] Reminder of BDFL succession timeline + CFP

[Victor Stinner]

2018-08-01 23:10 GMT+02:00 M.-A. Lemburg :
> So let's ponder some more about ideas we could use to
> get there and perhaps watch some Monty Python movies for
> inspiration ;-)

Monty Python's Life of Brian is an obvious tutorial how to select a
BDFL where FL means for life ;-)

Victor
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] List of all core developers

[Stefan Richthofer]

>
> Again, this was in the (poorly conveyed) context of getting email
> addresses for them, or at least being able to contact them.
>

I always thought there were already at least three places containing the
necessary email addresses.

* python-committers should be exactly this mailing list.
* according to https://devguide.python.org/coredev/#issue-tracker it is
mandatory for core developers to subscribe to the issue tracker which AFAIK
requires a confirmed email address.
* Every committer clearly must have signed the contributor agreement
https://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ wich also contains a
mandatory email field

So why is it still necessary to get email addresses at all?

2018-08-02 10:59 GMT+02:00 Eric V. Smith :

> On 8/2/2018 3:32 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>
>> On 02.08.2018 03:24, Eric V. Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/1/2018 8:32 PM, Mariatta Wijaya wrote:
>>>
  I think it would also be a good idea to include core developers
  of other Python implementations in such a document, in
  separate sections, e.g. for Jython, IronPython, PyPy,
  Stackless, etc


 Hmm, I don't think it is should be our (CPython) responsibility to
 keep track and maintain the list of the core devs of alternate Python
 implementations. Don't they have their own community / website? They
 have their own repo, bug tracker, governance model, and everything,
 right?

>>>
>>> Agreed. We have a hard enough time keeping track of our own core
>>> developers.
>>>
>>
>> I don't really think we have a hard time doing this. The only
>> problem is that we never sat down and actually properly recorded
>> this in one place.
>>
>
> I was specifically thinking of a way to stay in touch with core devs, or
> more specifically a way to send them email. In the past, before we moved to
> github, I took it upon myself to find email addresses (current or not) for
> all core devs, and I gave up without much success.
>
> I agree that we could probably come up with a list of names for people who
> have been given the "core dev" status.
>
> For our core devs, can't we just say that the CPython core devs are
>>> those with commit bits on the CPython repo? I realize that will
>>> eliminate some people who have been core developers and never moved to
>>> github, but if they bring it to our attention, we can add them easily
>>> enough.
>>>
>> As discussed before, being a core developer is a status you
>> gain and never lose. There is a clear difference between have
>> commit rights to the (current) repo and this status.
>>
>
> Agreed. Again, this was in the (poorly conveyed) context of getting email
> addresses for them, or at least being able to contact them.
>
> Eric
>
> ___
> 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/
>
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] List of all core developers

[Eric V. Smith]

On 8/2/2018 7:53 AM, Stefan Richthofer wrote:

Again, this was in the (poorly conveyed) context of getting email
addresses for them, or at least being able to contact them.


I always thought there were already at least three places containing the 
necessary email addresses.


* python-committers should be exactly this mailing list.
* according to https://devguide.python.org/coredev/#issue-tracker it is 
mandatory for core developers to subscribe to the issue tracker which 
AFAIK requires a confirmed email address.
* Every committer clearly must have signed the contributor agreement 
https://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ wich also contains a 
mandatory email field


So why is it still necessary to get email addresses at all?


I don't recall, exactly. It was at an early Language Summit, and we were 
looking for ways to contact everyone and to associate people with email 
addresses. It might have involved the mercurial migration. Maybe it's 
not still required. My point is that it's hard to come up with a list of 
core devs and match them with email addresses. If that's not the 
requirement here, then great!


I know I've had several addresses over the years, some of which are 
non-obviously associated with me, and some of which I no longer have 
access to.


Eric




2018-08-02 10:59 GMT+02:00 Eric V. Smith >:


On 8/2/2018 3:32 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:

On 02.08.2018 03:24, Eric V. Smith wrote:

On 8/1/2018 8:32 PM, Mariatta Wijaya wrote:

  I think it would also be a good idea to include
core developers
  of other Python implementations in such a document, in
  separate sections, e.g. for Jython, IronPython, PyPy,
  Stackless, etc


Hmm, I don't think it is should be our (CPython)
responsibility to
keep track and maintain the list of the core devs of
alternate Python
implementations. Don't they have their own community /
website? They
have their own repo, bug tracker, governance model, and
everything,
right?


Agreed. We have a hard enough time keeping track of our own core
developers.


I don't really think we have a hard time doing this. The only
problem is that we never sat down and actually properly recorded
this in one place.


I was specifically thinking of a way to stay in touch with core
devs, or more specifically a way to send them email. In the past,
before we moved to github, I took it upon myself to find email
addresses (current or not) for all core devs, and I gave up without
much success.

I agree that we could probably come up with a list of names for
people who have been given the "core dev" status.

For our core devs, can't we just say that the CPython core
devs are
those with commit bits on the CPython repo? I realize that will
eliminate some people who have been core developers and
never moved to
github, but if they bring it to our attention, we can add
them easily
enough.

As discussed before, being a core developer is a status you
gain and never lose. There is a clear difference between have
commit rights to the (current) repo and this status.


Agreed. Again, this was in the (poorly conveyed) context of getting
email addresses for them, or at least being able to contact them.

Eric

___
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/




___
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/

[python-committers] [RELEASED] Python 3.4.9 and Python 3.5.6 are now available

[Larry Hastings]

On behalf of the Python development community, I'm happy to announce the 
availability of Python 3.4.9 and Python 3.5.6.


Both Python 3.4 and 3.5 are in "security fixes only" mode.  Both 
versions only accept security fixes, not conventional bug fixes, and 
both releases are source-only.



You can find Python 3.4.9 here:

   https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-349/


And you can find Python 3.5.6 here:

   https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-356/


We now return you to your pitched debate already in progress,


//arry/
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] Reminder of BDFL succession timeline + CFP

[Jack Jansen]

Nathaniel, you strike the nail on the head here.

The reason Guido as BDFL and therefore ultimate authority on what “python” is 
worked because it is organic: it is not set down in strict rules and 
regulations and timelines and percentages of votes and what not. It works 
because a very large fraction of the community accepts it. (And I know I’m 
mixing past and present tense and I’m doing it on purpose:-)

We need to come up with a new governance model, and I think that a 
rules-and-regulations model is not a model that Python will thrive by. On the 
contrary, I think it has the danger of moving people into a 
rules-and-regulations mindset, and therefore lead to all sorts of decisions 
being viewed in a “political” light, where before they wouldn’t be.

And my worry is that be introducing deadlines and all that in the process there 
is the danger that we will inexorably move to a strict governance model. I 
would much prefer a process where we go here/there/everywhere and slowly a 
consensus builds up.

Jack

Sent from my iPad

> On Aug 1, 2018, at 23:22, Nathaniel Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Mariatta Wijaya
>  wrote:
>> Since this is like a CFP I figured we should clarify what's expected the
>> proposal, and I also wanted to be more detailed in the timeline.
>> 
>> Oct 1 00:00:00 UTC: Deadline of coming up with proposals of governance
>> model.
>> 
>> To be included in the proposal:
>> - explanation and reasoning of the governance model
>> - expected roles and responsibilities
>> - candidate for the role need not be included at this time, since we're only
>> choosing the governance model. Depending on the governance model chosen, we
>> might have different people to be nominated. There will be a separate
>> process for nominating the candidate.
>> - the term of governance: is it for life? 5 years? 10 years?
>> 
>> Who can submit the proposal?
>> Python core developers. Individual core devs can submit a proposal, or
>> co-author the proposal with another core dev.
>> 
>> How to submit the proposal?
>> Proposal should be in a form of a PEP, and merged into peps repo before Oct
>> 1 00:00:00 UTC. Proposals not merged after Oct 1 00:00:00 UTC will not be
>> considered.
>> 
>> Oct 1 - Nov 15: Review period.
>> All core developers will review the PEPs, and ask any questions to the PEP
>> author. This timeline allows for enough time for all core devs to carefully
>> review each PEPs, and for authors to respond.
>> 
>> There will be two parts of this:
>> 
>> Review phase 1: Oct 1- Nov 1: Allow changes and tweaks to the proposed PEPs.
>> I figured people will have questions and will need to clarify the PEPs
>> during this period. But if we want the PEP to be final by Oct 1, that's fine
>> by me. maybe allow typo fixes still.
>> 
>> Review phase 2: Nov 1 00:00:00 UTC: No more changes to the above PEPs.
>> No more tweaks to these PEPs. PRs to these PEPs should be rejected.
>> This is the final chance to carefully review all governance PEPs, and
>> formulate your decisions.
> 
> I'm worried that this whole plan is a bad idea.
> 
> This kind of process with deadlines, proposals, votes, etc., is an
> excellent way to take legitimacy and make it visible. That's a
> valuable thing, and addresses an important problem. But it's not the
> problem I'm most worried about here.
> 
> As engineers, we know that every design has trade-offs, and that goes
> for governance as well. Having a universally acclaimed BDFL like Guido
> has many tremendous advantages. But it also has one tremendous
> disadvantage: because we always knew Guido would make the final
> decision, and that we could always appeal to him when things didn't go
> the way we like, python-dev has never had to learn to work out
> disagreements and get along.
> 
> Now we have to figure that out: the legitimacy of any new governance
> system is ultimately going to have to rest on the consensus of the
> core devs. The only way I know to get that is by taking the time to
> work through the difficult conversations. If these deadlines just
> encourage people to keep moving and engaging, then that's great. But I
> worry that if we impose a cut-off like this up front, then we'll take
> that as an excuse to skip doing that work, because there's no time,
> and if someone disagrees it's easier to vote than to actually engage
> and work it out.
> 
> -n
> 
> -- 
> Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
> ___
> 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/

___
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/

Re: [python-committers] List of all core developers

[Jack Jansen]

> On Aug 1, 2018, at 23:37, Antoine Pitrou  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Le 01/08/2018 à 23:31, Jack Diederich a écrit :
>> https://hg.python.org/committers.txt
> 
> Probably outdated, for example Pablo Salingo Salgado doesn't seem there.

And historically incomplete: I seem to be missing from that list, even though 
github say I have commit rights. Interestingly, Sjoerd Mullender _is_ on the 
list (and who of us two is the second committee to python and who is the third 
is a matter of discussion:-)

Jack
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] Reminder of BDFL succession timeline + CFP

[Brett Cannon]

On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 17:58 Yury Selivanov  wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:29 PM Mariatta Wijaya
>  wrote:
> [..]
> > Please don't misunderstand my wanting to set up a deadlines and process
> as wanting to rush things.
>
> Absolutely, I understand, I didn't want to imply that "[name] is
> rushing the process". Sorry if I sounded this way. I do have an
> impression, though, that a large population of core devs is OK with
> deadlines and the other sizable population doesn't understand why we
> need a strict schedule right now.
>

For me I want to start laying out goals (or at least an initial goal)
because I don't want to procrastinate because this happens to be a hard
problem. I don't think any dates have to quite be all-or-nothing, but I can
also see this dragging on if we don't start to guiding ourselves towards
some resolution at some point.

I'll also mention that I'm looking to keep this moving this forward because
unlike Yury's experience as EuroPython, people have been asking me when
this is going to be resolved, not that we are moving too fast.


>
> > I'm open to extend the dates, and even wait another year if we need to.
> > Or do folks want to come up with a completely different process than
> what I've proposed?
> >
> > In the end, I just want to know whether we will come to decision before
> 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, .. ?
>
> IMHO we should tweak the proposal to include just *one date for now*:
> we want everybody interested to post their proposals by October 1st
> (we can shift it + 2 weeks if people are on vacations right now).
>

I was actually going to email suggesting this but Mariatta beat me to the
subject. :)

For me, I think aiming for October 1st to get the initial proposals in is a
good goal.

If it looks like people need some more time then that's fine and they can
ask for it and we can all agree to extend it, but we first need to (a) get
to October 1, and (b) people actually end up needing more time :) . As of
right now no one has concretely said that October 1 won't work for them
(it's actually October 1 specifically because Victor asked for that date so
he could make a proposal due to his vacation in August). So for me, going
forward with the goal of October 1 for people proposing governance models
seems reasonable and we can re-assess as we get closer to that date.


>
> The discussion will inevitably start as soon as we have a couple
> proposals on the table.  Some proposals will be withdrawn, some will
> require tweaks, people also might come up with new proposals.  We can
> then decide what our next steps (and deadlines!) considering what will
> be the outcome of these first debates.
>

+1
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] Reminder of BDFL succession timeline + CFP

[Brett Cannon]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 00:24 Ronald Oussoren via python-committers <
python-committers@python.org> wrote:

>
>
> > On 2 Aug 2018, at 01:06, Yury Selivanov  wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:44 PM Mariatta Wijaya
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> Currently any undecided PEP is stalled, and no one can pronounce on
> them.
> >
> > And maybe that's OK for a few months? I don't recall Guido ever
> > accepting PEPs promptly. :)  Setting strict deadlines really seems
> > like a last-resort option.
>
> That, and it might be acceptable to start with a consensus based model for
> accepting PEPs at first. That would help in getting it clearer what we
> really need going forward (which as several people have stated is more than
> just deciding on PEPs).  That would mean that contentious PEPs would have
> to wait longer, but that isn’t necessarily a bad idea.
>

So basically you want to see if we can find consensus on using consensus
for PEPs? ;) Or put another way, basically this seems to suggest giving the
consensus/voting approach a chance without specifically saying you want to
give other proposals on how to model PEPs a chance as well because deciding
by consensus is still a governance model.

Personally I would rather say that we are in a language moratorium until we
resolve this governance situation and if that means Python 3.8 is a boring
release then so be it.
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] List of all core developers

[Brett Cannon]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 13:02 Jack Jansen  wrote:

>
> > On Aug 1, 2018, at 23:37, Antoine Pitrou  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Le 01/08/2018 à 23:31, Jack Diederich a écrit :
> >> https://hg.python.org/committers.txt
> >
> > Probably outdated, for example Pablo Salingo Salgado doesn't seem there.
>
> And historically incomplete: I seem to be missing from that list, even
> though github say I have commit rights. Interestingly, Sjoerd Mullender
> _is_ on the list (and who of us two is the second committee to python and
> who is the third is a matter of discussion:-)
>

That file is auto-generated based on SSH keys for accessing hg.python.org,
so it became outdated as of the git migration.
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] List of all core developers

[Brett Cannon]

On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 14:44 M.-A. Lemburg  wrote:

> On 01.08.2018 23:28, Mariatta Wijaya wrote:
> > See also an open issue to revamp the Developer log:
> > https://github.com/python/devguide/issues/390
> >
> > Someone has also said that they're working on tracking down the dormant
> > core devs, but now I can't find that email.
>
> I think the log is fine at it is, since it serves a different
> purpose.
>

What is the purpose? I don't remember why we started to keep the developer
log in that format as I have never felt the need to go back and see who
vouched for someone or who granted the commit rights in the end.

-Brett


>
> The list should be in addition to the log, not replacing it.
>
> Resources we already have:
>
> * https://devguide.python.org/developers/
> *
>
> https://bugs.python.org/user?%40action=search&iscommitter=1&%40pagesize=300&%40sort=username
> * python-committers Subscribers List (but this is currently only
>   for list admins to see - perhaps we could make that available
>   to list members ?!)
> * https://hg.python.org/committers.txt
> * for the early days:
>
>
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/python/cpython/e42b705188271da108de42b55d9344642170aa2b/Misc/HISTORY
>   in combination with
>
>
> https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/e42b705188271da108de42b55d9344642170aa2b/Misc/ACKS
>   (in those times, there was no direct access to the repo
>   and all patches had to go through the team around Guido)
>
> I think it would also be a good idea to include core developers
> of other Python implementations in such a document, in
> separate sections, e.g. for Jython, IronPython, PyPy,
> Stackless, etc.
>
>
> > Mariatta
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:15 PM M.-A. Lemburg  wrote:
> >
> >> It's become fairly obvious that we are missing a list of core
> >> developers on some site. One we can use as reference and one
> >> which core devs can also show to other to prove they are
> >> core developers.
> >>
> >> I guess the natural place for such a list is the dev guide,
> >> but we could also use a page on www.python.org, if that's easier
> >> to maintain.
> >>
> >> Regarding format, I'd suggest to use the same as PSF Fellows
> >> list:
> >>
> >> https://www.python.org/psf/members/#fellows
> >>
> >> Thoughts ?
> >>
> >> Note: Asking for this now is not completely unintentional.
> >> The EuroPython Society has something to announce which will
> >> require such a list.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> --
> >> Marc-Andre Lemburg
> >> eGenix.com
> >>
> >> Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Aug 01 2018)
> > Python Projects, Coaching and Consulting ...  http://www.egenix.com/
> > Python Database Interfaces ...   http://products.egenix.com/
> > Plone/Zope Database Interfaces ...   http://zope.egenix.com/
> >> 
> >>
> >> ::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs :::
> >>
> >>eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
> >> D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
> >>Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
> >>http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
> >>   http://www.malemburg.com/
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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/
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Marc-Andre Lemburg
> eGenix.com
>
> Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Aug 01 2018)
> >>> Python Projects, Coaching and Consulting ...  http://www.egenix.com/
> >>> Python Database Interfaces ...   http://products.egenix.com/
> >>> Plone/Zope Database Interfaces ...   http://zope.egenix.com/
> 
>
> ::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs :::
>
>eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
> D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
>Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
>http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
>   http://www.malemburg.com/
>
> ___
> 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/
>
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] List of all core developers

[Brett Cannon]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 00:32 M.-A. Lemburg  wrote:

> On 02.08.2018 03:24, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> > On 8/1/2018 8:32 PM, Mariatta Wijaya wrote:
> >> I think it would also be a good idea to include core developers
> >> of other Python implementations in such a document, in
> >> separate sections, e.g. for Jython, IronPython, PyPy,
> >> Stackless, etc
> >>
> >>
> >> Hmm, I don't think it is should be our (CPython) responsibility to
> >> keep track and maintain the list of the core devs of alternate Python
> >> implementations. Don't they have their own community / website? They
> >> have their own repo, bug tracker, governance model, and everything,
> >> right?
> >
> > Agreed. We have a hard enough time keeping track of our own core
> > developers.
>
> I don't really think we have a hard time doing this. The only
> problem is that we never sat down and actually properly recorded
> this in one place.
>
> Other projects will, of course, have their own websites, but since
> Python is more than just CPython, it would be great to include those
> other developers in an official list as well. It would be up for
> for the other teams to maintain their lists.
>
> That said, this part is lower priority than the CPython core
> developer listing.
>
> > For our core devs, can't we just say that the CPython core devs are
> > those with commit bits on the CPython repo? I realize that will
> > eliminate some people who have been core developers and never moved to
> > github, but if they bring it to our attention, we can add them easily
> > enough.
> As discussed before, being a core developer is a status you
> gain and never lose. There is a clear difference between have
> commit rights to the (current) repo and this status.
>

> What I am after, is a list of core developers, not a list of
> people with their keys on github (or where ever we move in the
> future), since this list is not about a technical status, but rather
> a social one.
>

Then the issue I created which Mariatta linked to I think covers this
desire to have a historical record of people who have been core developers
along with when they have had commit privileges.
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] List of all core developers

[Brett Cannon]

On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 14:29 Mariatta Wijaya 
wrote:

> See also an open issue to revamp the Developer log:
> https://github.com/python/devguide/issues/390
>
> Someone has also said that they're working on tracking down the dormant
> core devs, but now I can't find that email.
>

Ethan said he would reach out to the folks on bugs.python.org who don't
have a GitHub usernames listed, but I don't know if he was going to get to
this before the dev sprints.

-Brett


>
> Mariatta
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:15 PM M.-A. Lemburg  wrote:
>
>> It's become fairly obvious that we are missing a list of core
>> developers on some site. One we can use as reference and one
>> which core devs can also show to other to prove they are
>> core developers.
>>
>> I guess the natural place for such a list is the dev guide,
>> but we could also use a page on www.python.org, if that's easier
>> to maintain.
>>
>> Regarding format, I'd suggest to use the same as PSF Fellows
>> list:
>>
>> https://www.python.org/psf/members/#fellows
>>
>> Thoughts ?
>>
>> Note: Asking for this now is not completely unintentional.
>> The EuroPython Society has something to announce which will
>> require such a list.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> Marc-Andre Lemburg
>> eGenix.com
>>
>> Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Aug 01 2018)
>> >>> Python Projects, Coaching and Consulting ...  http://www.egenix.com/
>> >>> Python Database Interfaces ...   http://products.egenix.com/
>> >>> Plone/Zope Database Interfaces ...   http://zope.egenix.com/
>> 
>>
>> ::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs :::
>>
>>eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
>> D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
>>Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
>>http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
>>   http://www.malemburg.com/
>>
>> ___
>> 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/
>>
> ___
> 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/
>
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] List of all core developers

[Brett Cannon]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 04:54 Stefan Richthofer 
wrote:

> Again, this was in the (poorly conveyed) context of getting email
>> addresses for them, or at least being able to contact them.
>>
>
> I always thought there were already at least three places containing the
> necessary email addresses.
>
> * python-committers should be exactly this mailing list.
>

The list also has email archiving services as well as duplicate emails for
people (e.g. I'm in it twice so that if I accidentally send an email from a
personal email address it doesn't get held up in moderation).


> * according to https://devguide.python.org/coredev/#issue-tracker it is
> mandatory for core developers to subscribe to the issue tracker which AFAIK
> requires a confirmed email address.
>
* Every committer clearly must have signed the contributor agreement
> https://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ which also contains a
> mandatory email field
>
> So why is it still necessary to get email addresses at all?
>

Because none of those necessarily have accurate email addresses at this
point. E.g. even python-committers has had people dropped off due to too
many email rejections. And if we hold a vote for a governance model we will
need a place to send ballots.

Now if the vote is open to any core developer (using MAL's definition of it
being a lifetime title), then the subscription list for this mailing list
is probably good enough with some manual grooming as long we are okay with
long-dormant folk who predate this list not voting (which I'm personally
fine with). But if we wanted a way to reach just people with commit
privileges then that's a separate challenge.

-Brett


>
> 2018-08-02 10:59 GMT+02:00 Eric V. Smith :
>
>> On 8/2/2018 3:32 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>
>>> On 02.08.2018 03:24, Eric V. Smith wrote:
>>>
 On 8/1/2018 8:32 PM, Mariatta Wijaya wrote:

>  I think it would also be a good idea to include core developers
>  of other Python implementations in such a document, in
>  separate sections, e.g. for Jython, IronPython, PyPy,
>  Stackless, etc
>
>
> Hmm, I don't think it is should be our (CPython) responsibility to
> keep track and maintain the list of the core devs of alternate Python
> implementations. Don't they have their own community / website? They
> have their own repo, bug tracker, governance model, and everything,
> right?
>

 Agreed. We have a hard enough time keeping track of our own core
 developers.

>>>
>>> I don't really think we have a hard time doing this. The only
>>> problem is that we never sat down and actually properly recorded
>>> this in one place.
>>>
>>
>> I was specifically thinking of a way to stay in touch with core devs, or
>> more specifically a way to send them email. In the past, before we moved to
>> github, I took it upon myself to find email addresses (current or not) for
>> all core devs, and I gave up without much success.
>>
>> I agree that we could probably come up with a list of names for people
>> who have been given the "core dev" status.
>>
>> For our core devs, can't we just say that the CPython core devs are
 those with commit bits on the CPython repo? I realize that will
 eliminate some people who have been core developers and never moved to
 github, but if they bring it to our attention, we can add them easily
 enough.

>>> As discussed before, being a core developer is a status you
>>> gain and never lose. There is a clear difference between have
>>> commit rights to the (current) repo and this status.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. Again, this was in the (poorly conveyed) context of getting email
>> addresses for them, or at least being able to contact them.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> ___
>> 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/
>>
>
> ___
> 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/
>
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] Reminder of BDFL succession timeline + CFP

[Yury Selivanov]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 4:43 PM Brett Cannon  wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 17:58 Yury Selivanov  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:29 PM Mariatta Wijaya
>>  wrote:
>> [..]
>> > I'm open to extend the dates, and even wait another year if we need to.
>> > Or do folks want to come up with a completely different process than what 
>> > I've proposed?
>> >
>> > In the end, I just want to know whether we will come to decision before 
>> > 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, .. ?
>>
>> IMHO we should tweak the proposal to include just *one date for now*:
>> we want everybody interested to post their proposals by October 1st
>> (we can shift it + 2 weeks if people are on vacations right now).
>
>
> I was actually going to email suggesting this but Mariatta beat me to the 
> subject. :)
>

I think you've confused Mariatta with me here :)

> For me, I think aiming for October 1st to get the initial proposals in is a 
> good goal.

Yeah it looks like people don't oppose having October 1st as our first
*soft* sync point as long as we don't set any other deadlines right
now.

To sum up:

* We want everybody who has ideas about future Python governance model
to submit their initial proposals by that date.

* The discussion will start around October 1st and we'll figure out
what we do next (and when) based on its outcome.

I think this plan is reasonably relaxed, but at the same time will
gently motivate us to move forward.

Yury
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] Reminder of BDFL succession timeline + CFP

[Yury Selivanov]

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 3:55 PM Jack Jansen  wrote:
>
> Nathaniel, you strike the nail on the head here.
>
> The reason Guido as BDFL and therefore ultimate authority on what “python” is 
> worked because it is organic: it is not set down in strict rules and 
> regulations and timelines and percentages of votes and what not. It works 
> because a very large fraction of the community accepts it. (And I know I’m 
> mixing past and present tense and I’m doing it on purpose:-)
>
> We need to come up with a new governance model, and I think that a 
> rules-and-regulations model is not a model that Python will thrive by. On the 
> contrary, I think it has the danger of moving people into a 
> rules-and-regulations mindset, and therefore lead to all sorts of decisions 
> being viewed in a “political” light, where before they wouldn’t be.
>
> And my worry is that be introducing deadlines and all that in the process 
> there is the danger that we will inexorably move to a strict governance 
> model. I would much prefer a process where we go here/there/everywhere and 
> slowly a consensus builds up.

I agree and that's why I also don't like the idea of having a strict
set of deadlines for voting on something that hasn't even been
proposed yet.

OTOH, it would be great if we can at least set a date to start the
discussion so that everybody can plan for it and join.  That's the
only way to keep the discussion open and equally accessible for
everyone.  If we do nothing, then naturally, those core devs who know
each other personally will start forming their opinion in isolated
groups. Many people will feel that they are completely removed from
the decision process and will end up in a very uncomfortable position.

Yury
___
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/

Re: [python-committers] List of all core developers

[Stefan Richthofer]

> as long we are okay with long-dormant folk who predate this list not
voting (which I'm personally fine with)

That sounds reasonable. Maintaining contact info is everyone's own
responsibility and not a too hard requirement.
And I see that for the vote it's necessary to sort out emails more
carefully. Because of the duplicates
issue, votes should probably better be counted based on names rather than
emails though.
Anyway, it appears to me that the emails issue is orthogonal to the dev
list issue.

2018-08-02 23:25 GMT+02:00 Brett Cannon :

>
>
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 04:54 Stefan Richthofer 
> wrote:
>
>> Again, this was in the (poorly conveyed) context of getting email
>>> addresses for them, or at least being able to contact them.
>>>
>>
>> I always thought there were already at least three places containing the
>> necessary email addresses.
>>
>> * python-committers should be exactly this mailing list.
>>
>
> The list also has email archiving services as well as duplicate emails for
> people (e.g. I'm in it twice so that if I accidentally send an email from a
> personal email address it doesn't get held up in moderation).
>
>
>> * according to https://devguide.python.org/coredev/#issue-tracker it is
>> mandatory for core developers to subscribe to the issue tracker which AFAIK
>> requires a confirmed email address.
>>
> * Every committer clearly must have signed the contributor agreement
>> https://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ which also contains a
>> mandatory email field
>>
>> So why is it still necessary to get email addresses at all?
>>
>
> Because none of those necessarily have accurate email addresses at this
> point. E.g. even python-committers has had people dropped off due to too
> many email rejections. And if we hold a vote for a governance model we will
> need a place to send ballots.
>
> Now if the vote is open to any core developer (using MAL's definition of
> it being a lifetime title), then the subscription list for this mailing
> list is probably good enough with some manual grooming as long we are okay
> with long-dormant folk who predate this list not voting (which I'm
> personally fine with). But if we wanted a way to reach just people with
> commit privileges then that's a separate challenge.
>
> -Brett
>
>
>>
>> 2018-08-02 10:59 GMT+02:00 Eric V. Smith :
>>
>>> On 8/2/2018 3:32 AM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>>>
 On 02.08.2018 03:24, Eric V. Smith wrote:

> On 8/1/2018 8:32 PM, Mariatta Wijaya wrote:
>
>>  I think it would also be a good idea to include core developers
>>  of other Python implementations in such a document, in
>>  separate sections, e.g. for Jython, IronPython, PyPy,
>>  Stackless, etc
>>
>>
>> Hmm, I don't think it is should be our (CPython) responsibility to
>> keep track and maintain the list of the core devs of alternate Python
>> implementations. Don't they have their own community / website? They
>> have their own repo, bug tracker, governance model, and everything,
>> right?
>>
>
> Agreed. We have a hard enough time keeping track of our own core
> developers.
>

 I don't really think we have a hard time doing this. The only
 problem is that we never sat down and actually properly recorded
 this in one place.

>>>
>>> I was specifically thinking of a way to stay in touch with core devs, or
>>> more specifically a way to send them email. In the past, before we moved to
>>> github, I took it upon myself to find email addresses (current or not) for
>>> all core devs, and I gave up without much success.
>>>
>>> I agree that we could probably come up with a list of names for people
>>> who have been given the "core dev" status.
>>>
>>> For our core devs, can't we just say that the CPython core devs are
> those with commit bits on the CPython repo? I realize that will
> eliminate some people who have been core developers and never moved to
> github, but if they bring it to our attention, we can add them easily
> enough.
>
 As discussed before, being a core developer is a status you
 gain and never lose. There is a clear difference between have
 commit rights to the (current) repo and this status.

>>>
>>> Agreed. Again, this was in the (poorly conveyed) context of getting
>>> email addresses for them, or at least being able to contact them.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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/
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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/
>>
>
___
python-committe

Re: [python-committers] Reminder of BDFL succession timeline + CFP

[Terry Reedy]

On 8/2/2018 8:01 PM, Yury Selivanov wrote:

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 4:43 PM Brett Cannon  wrote:


On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 17:58 Yury Selivanov  wrote:


On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 8:29 PM Mariatta Wijaya
 wrote:
[..]

I'm open to extend the dates, and even wait another year if we need to.
Or do folks want to come up with a completely different process than what I've 
proposed?

In the end, I just want to know whether we will come to decision before 2019, 
2020, 2021, 2022, .. ?


IMHO we should tweak the proposal to include just *one date for now*:
we want everybody interested to post their proposals by October 1st
(we can shift it + 2 weeks if people are on vacations right now).



I was actually going to email suggesting this but Mariatta beat me to the 
subject. :)



I think you've confused Mariatta with me here :)


For me, I think aiming for October 1st to get the initial proposals in is a 
good goal.


Yeah it looks like people don't oppose having October 1st as our first
*soft* sync point as long as we don't set any other deadlines right
now.

To sum up:

* We want everybody who has ideas about future Python governance model
to submit their initial proposals by that date.

* The discussion will start around October 1st and we'll figure out
what we do next (and when) based on its outcome.

I think this plan is reasonably relaxed, but at the same time will
gently motivate us to move forward.


I agree.

___
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/