[Victor Stinner ]
>> The PEP 8001 is not trivial, it expects a specific format:
>>
>> **DO NOT LEAVE ANY BRACKETS BLANK!**
>> **DO NOT REPEAT A RANKING/NUMBER!**
[Nathaniel Smith ]
> I'm not sure what the motivation for those restrictions is. I guess
> with IRV there isn't an obvious way to
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
> The PEP 8001 is not trivial, it expects a specific format:
>
> **DO NOT LEAVE ANY BRACKETS BLANK!**
> **DO NOT REPEAT A RANKING/NUMBER!**
>
> Maybe it would help to have a script to validate my own vote? (Also
> ensure that all choices are
[Victor Stinner ]
> I'm unhappy with the "[] Further discussion" choice. We have a
> governance crisis. Many people would like to see it resolved as soon
> as possible, I don't see the ability to vote for "[] Further
> discussion" as a way to resolve this crisis.
Nobody else does either. This
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018, 21:44 Victor Stinner Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 04:40, Eric Snow a
> écrit :
> > Would it help if we only published who voted, and kept their votes
> private? Publishing the actual votes probably doesn't make a big
> difference here, relative to the broader Python/tech
Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 04:40, Eric Snow a écrit :
> Would it help if we only published who voted, and kept their votes private?
> Publishing the actual votes probably doesn't make a big difference here,
> relative to the broader Python/tech community.
The PEP has a whole section explaining the
> > I see that the PEP 8001 is still being updated (voting method). Should
> > we still expect new changes before the vote starts?
>
> I don't detect any groundswell of opposition anymore now that the
> voting method changed.
I'm unhappy with the "[] Further discussion" choice. We have a
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018, 21:24 Tim Peters Nevertheless, I probably won't vote - I object to public ballots on
> principle. That's been raised by others, so I won't repeat the
> arguments, and I appear to be very much in a minority here.
>
Would it help if we only published who voted, and kept their
[Victor Stinner ,
asking lots of good questions]
> ...
> I see that the PEP 8001 is still being updated (voting method). Should
> we still expect new changes before the vote starts?
I don't detect any groundswell of opposition anymore now that the
voting method changed.
Nevertheless, I probably
Hi,
According to the PEP 8001: "The vote will happen in a 2-week-long
window from November 16 2018 to November 30 (Anywhere-on-Earth)." It's
now in less than two weeks.
I see that the PEP 8001 is still being updated (voting method). Should
we still expect new changes before the vote starts? Can
On 02Nov2018 0933, Victor Stinner wrote:
Mentoring is an investment in the long term. Is it better to pay
someone to review and merge PRs?
Reviewing PRs is also a way to help and train contributors. It's not
very different from mentoring, depending on your definition of
mentoring :-)
The
[Donald Stufft ]
> ...
> Really, 3-2-1 is the only one that it feels to me like could really argue
> about
> the tally method of the poll.
Since I suggested 3-2-1 to begin with, let me assure you that Approval
for the poll was fine with me. Heck, I didn't even once object that
the pool creator
[Chris Jerdonek ]
> My reply was to Brett and not to you.
So it was! I missed that - I just noticed that the vast bulk of the
text I was replying to was a quote of my message here about the poll.
I should have checked.
> If I had known the poll was going to be binding,
As before, I had - and
> On Nov 2, 2018, at 8:22 PM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 5:09 PM Tim Peters wrote:
>>
>> [Chris Jerdonek ]
>>> It would have been nice to know beforehand if the results of the poll
>>> were going to change the PEP.
>>
>> Don't look at me ;-) Like I said, "I'm not in
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 5:09 PM Tim Peters wrote:
>
> [Chris Jerdonek ]
> > It would have been nice to know beforehand if the results of the poll
> > were going to change the PEP.
>
> Don't look at me ;-) Like I said, "I'm not in charge of anything",
> and I had no input in changing PEP 8001
[Chris Jerdonek ]
> It would have been nice to know beforehand if the results of the poll
> were going to change the PEP.
Don't look at me ;-) Like I said, "I'm not in charge of anything",
and I had no input in changing PEP 8001 beyond contributing to the
message thread, same as everyone else.
It would have been nice to know beforehand if the results of the poll
were going to change the PEP. I didn't participate because I didn't
feel like the poll had a fair process like the PEP's themselves.
--Chris
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 3:21 PM Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> FYI I just updated PEP 8001
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 11:57:02PM +0100, Victor Stinner wrote:
> Le ven. 2 nov. 2018 à 23:49, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
> > How many people voted? Out of what (approximate) pool of potential
> > voters?
>
> 25 voters on 65 core developers who have an account on discuss.python.org.
Thanks!
--
Le ven. 2 nov. 2018 à 23:49, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
> How many people voted? Out of what (approximate) pool of potential
> voters?
25 voters on 65 core developers who have an account on discuss.python.org.
25 can be seen at:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 03:20:43PM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
> FYI I just updated PEP 8001 with the result of the poll which very clearly
> favoured the Condorcet method for winner selection.
That was quick. It would have been nice if there had been some sort of
obvious announcement of the
FYI I just updated PEP 8001 with the result of the poll which very clearly
favoured the Condorcet method for winner selection.
On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 12:52, Tim Peters wrote:
> There's a poll about the voting method to use to decide on the winning
> governance PEP. We'd like to see more people
Le ven. 2 nov. 2018 à 14:55, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
> As a side note, I'm not against the general principle of funding some
> mentorship or other contribution-related activity. I'm just unsure that
> this would be money well spent.
This is a good question. We already a lot of core developers,
Le 02/11/2018 à 14:19, Tal Einat a écrit :
> > I am learning that
> > effectively mentoring a developer requires being able to spend a good
> > amount of time nearly daily on such mentoring.
It really depends on the availability and skills of the mentoree. I
have mentorees who are very busy and
As a side note, I'm not against the general principle of funding some
mentorship or other contribution-related activity. I'm just unsure that
this would be money well spent.
Regards
Antoine.
Le 02/11/2018 à 14:37, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
>
> Le 02/11/2018 à 14:19, Tal Einat a écrit :
>>
>>
Le 02/11/2018 à 14:19, Tal Einat a écrit :
>
> I would also like to work towards these goals. I have recently invested
> more time on the core-mentorship mailing list and Zulip stream, as well
> as doing my best to mentor two promising developers. However, my free
> time is becoming increasingly
*tl;dr:* I’d like to apply for a PSF grant to mentor several developers
towards becoming active contributors and hopefully core-devs.
1. What do you think? Any +1/-1 would be very helpful.
2. I'm looking for info on how successful mentoring has been in getting
more contributors. Any such info or
25 matches
Mail list logo
