(original) (raw)

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Jeff Hardy <jdhardy@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Eric Snow <ericsnowcurrently@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nick's option 2 would be an improvement, but I imagine that option 3
> would have been the most effective by far. Of course, the key thing
> is how closely the various implementors would follow the new list.
> Only they could say, though Frank Wierzbicki seemed positive about it.

This has come up a couple of times recently (discussions on PEP 421
and PEP 405), so I think it would be worth while. I don't have the
time to track all of the different proposals that are in flux; it
would be nice to know when they're "done" and just need a sanity check
to make sure everything will work for other implementations.

Yes, perhaps if the list were \*just\* a place to cc: in or send a heads-up to python-dev discussions, and not to have actual list discussions per se, that would do the trick.

IOW, the idea is, "If you're a contributor to a non-CPython implementation, subscribe here to get a heads-up on Python-Dev discussions you should be following." Not, "here's a list to discuss Python implementations in general", and definitely not a place to *actually conduct discussions* at all: the only things ever posted there should be cc:'d from or to Python-Dev, or be pointers to Python-Dev threads.

That way, we'd have a solution for the periodic, "hmm, we should get other implementations to weigh in on this thread" problem, that wouldn't actually divide the discussion. Instead, we'd have a "Bat Signal" (Snake Signal?) to bring the other heroes in to meet with Commissioner Guido. ;-)