Hi Paul,
Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 11:55, Paul Moore a écrit :
> Currently, I feel like my only option is to abstain and hope - I don't
> have the time (or knowledge) to review, understand and assess the
> proposals well enough to make an informed vote, but I have no way of
> assessing the "expert op
Le 05/11/2018 à 23:08, Victor Stinner a écrit :
> Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 10:39, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
>>> 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
We need a list of core developers email addresses to send ballot emails to.
Since PEP 8001 states that we’re using inclusion in the ``python-core`` team on
GitHub as the list of “registered voters”, I wrote up a quick script that
compiled a list of GitHub usernames in that team *today* and any p
Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 10:39, Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
> > 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 thi
I'm going to quote multiple people here and respond to various
comments at once. It's way harder doing so than it would have been in
Discourse, so I'm sort of proving that for myself (but having said
that, I was already aware of, and fine with, the idea that Discourse
does stuff like this better -
[Paul Moore ]
> I did consider what I would have done on Discourse, and came to the
> conclusion that I would have done exactly the same - I've no idea how
> Discourse would help with a "here's some things I thought of that I
> felt needed saying while reading this thread" post.
It wouldn't, and n
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 11:29, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 19:11, Brett Cannon wrote:
> >> I'd like to spend some time reviewing the proposals and understanding
> >> the options we're being asked to vote on, but I do *not* want to waste
> >> time reviewing proposals that are still in
> On Nov 5, 2018, at 2:29 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
>
> Hmm, so voting opens immediately after the PEPs are finalised? No
> discussion/debate period before that? Maybe I misunderstood, I'd
> assumed that this would be more similar to an election process, with a
> period of canvassing support and/or
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 11:22, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 19:11, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
> >> Anyhow, this is probably a bit off-topic again.
> >
> > Yes, but that's a drawback to mailing lists in my opinion and it's hard
> to avoid. :)
>
> I did consider what I would have done on Dis
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 19:11, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> I'd like to spend some time reviewing the proposals and understanding
>> the options we're being asked to vote on, but I do *not* want to waste
>> time reviewing proposals that are still in flux. How do I know when I
>> can do that?
>
> I think t
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 19:11, Brett Cannon wrote:
>> Anyhow, this is probably a bit off-topic again.
>
> Yes, but that's a drawback to mailing lists in my opinion and it's hard to
> avoid. :)
I did consider what I would have done on Discourse, and came to the
conclusion that I would have done ex
On Nov 5, 2018, at 11:10, Brett Cannon wrote:
> It's outdated. I think Barry just hasn't thought of updating it yet since
> it's just an index into the 801X PEPs which you can view in the PEP index
> directly without any special background info (I know I personally forgot that
> PEP 8000 even
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 10:53, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 15:25, Steve Dower wrote:
> > For example, right now, I'm leaning towards 8013, 8010, 8016, 8011,
> > 8012, 8015, 8014. But since some are still in flux (particularly 8016),
> > that could change. And my core rationale is bas
Everyone who has spoken up on my behalf is right: I personally never viewed
the poll as binding. When I first suggested doing the poll my schedule
outline included a day to discuss the results as never considered it
something that was an objective thing to follow (I think we ended up with
about two
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> As one example of my confusion here,
> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-8016/ is currently a 404.
Sorry about that – there's a thread here with background:
https://discuss.python.org/t/working-discussion-for-pep-8016-the-boringest-possi
15 matches
Mail list logo
