A natural question that arises is who will be responsible for authoring it?
I'd guess anyone with a strong enough opinion (and there's no shortage of
those) could be the one who does it.
Separating bikeshedding from refusals/rejections definitely has merit
though, especially for the person making
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 11:57:49 +0100
Mark Shannon wrote:
>
> An Anti-PEP is a way to ensure that those opposed to a PEP can be heard
> and, if possible, have a coherent voice.
> Hopefully, it would also make things a lot less stressful for PEP authors.
I don't think this really works. A PEP has
On 25.06.2020 13:57, Mark Shannon wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to propose the "Anti-PEP".
As I'm sure you've all noticed, contentious PEPs like 572, and now 622,
generate a lot of email discussion.
It's easy to feel that people's opinions are being dismissed and that
legitimate criticisms aren't bei
In my experience, different people keep proposing the same idea until
it's recorded in the PEP. The PEP doesn't have to address all remarks
or take in account all ideas, but it's good to record the most common
proposed ideas. The important part is to show that other people's
opinions have been hear
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 5:45 AM Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 11:57:49 +0100
> Mark Shannon wrote:
> >
> > An Anti-PEP is a way to ensure that those opposed to a PEP can be heard
> > and, if possible, have a coherent voice.
> > Hopefully, it would also make things a lot less stress
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:52 AM Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 5:45 AM Antoine Pitrou
> wrote:
>
>> I don't think this really works. A PEP has to present a consistent
>> view of the world, and works as a cohesive whole. Arguments against a
>> PEP don't form a PEP in themselves,
Brett Cannon writes:
> I agree, and that's what the Rejected Ideas section is supposed to
> capture.
Perhaps there could be guidance, in documentation (and if appropriate
from the PEP-Delegate or the Steering Council), that the PEP proponent
collaborate with a leading opponent, critic, and/or u
> it is hard to make a decision between the pros and cons,
> when the pros are in a single formal document and the
> cons are scattered across the internet.
Mark, I support your idea. It is natural for PEP authors to not fully
articulate the voices of opposition or counter-proposals.
The cu
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 6:49 PM Raymond Hettinger <
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > it is hard to make a decision between the pros and cons,
> > when the pros are in a single formal document and the
> > cons are scattered across the internet.
>
> Mark, I support your idea. It is natural f
On 26/06/20 2:18 pm, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
Regardless i don't see how an anti-pep would work much better, but I
also don't see anything stopping anyone from trying one. I worry that
it'll fragment conversation even more and separate discussions so that
everyone is even more confused about ov
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 02:42, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
>
> > it is hard to make a decision between the pros and cons,
> > when the pros are in a single formal document and the
> > cons are scattered across the internet.
>
> Mark, I support your idea. It is natural for PEP authors to not fully
>
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 7:29 PM Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 6:49 PM Raymond Hettinger <
> raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > it is hard to make a decision between the pros and cons,
>> > when the pros are in a single formal document and the
>> > cons are scattered
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:37 PM Chris Jerdonek
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:52 AM Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 5:45 AM Antoine Pitrou
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think this really works. A PEP has to present a consistent
>>> view of the world, and works as a cohesive wh
On Sat., 27 Jun. 2020, 3:42 am Brett Cannon, wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:37 PM Chris Jerdonek
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:52 AM Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 5:45 AM Antoine Pitrou
>>> wrote:
>>>
I don't think this really works. A PEP has to p
In my humble opinion, this doesn't warrant the creation of a new structure, but
rather a restructuring of PEPs.
As mentioned by others, we have a "Rejected Ideas" section already, but that
seems to somewhat miss the point. It captures only the arguments that have won,
arguments moved against sp
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:53 AM wrote:
>
> In my humble opinion, this doesn't warrant the creation of a new structure,
> but rather a restructuring of PEPs.
>
> As mentioned by others, we have a "Rejected Ideas" section already, but that
> seems to somewhat miss the point. It captures only the
On 6/28/20 11:02 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Yep! A number of PEPs have "Objections" sections. I think that'd be a
> good title for it.
Yes, that was my thought. Have the PEP author include a summary of the
major objections, and their defense to those objections. (The presence
of the defense doesn
17 matches
Mail list logo
