[Python-Dev] Two small PEP ideas (original) (raw)

Brett Cannon brett at python.org
Fri Sep 3 21:50:14 CEST 2010

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 08:45, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:

One thing that would help would be for Guido to let us know early on when he'd prefer to delegate the decision. Hey! I'm still here! :-) More to the point, you can assume that I'm happy to have every PEP decision made by someone else except if you see me participate in the thread. If I don't show up in the thread, you can assume that either (a) I don't care or know enough about the topic, or (b) I am confident that it's going in the right direction.

I guess the real question comes down to whether you want us to bug you to select the temp dictator or just make a call amongst ourselves?

This goes along with identifying the ultimate PEP arbiter (UPA? :) as early as possible. I prefer acronyms derived from BDFL, like BDFM ("BD for the moment") or perhaps BDFP ("BD for the PEP"). (BDFM sounds better but BDFP is more accurate. I'll leave it up to the FLUFL to pick one.)

I personally like BDFN ("BD for now") or BDAGW ("BD at Guido's whim"), but this will bikeshed into eternity, so I am happy with the FLUFL being the dictator for the new acronym choice. =)

 As Raymond says, it should be someone independent of the proposal, but with the interest, time, and experience necessary to make an informed decision.  We might even want to capture the arbiter selection in a PEP header (similar to the new Resolution header for capturing the final decision reference).

While I agree that we don't want decision by committee, I think we should consider a preference for paired arbiters.  I have the highest respect for all the senior developers who would likely make up the pool of PEP deciders, but it gave me great confidence to have both Benjamin and Georg decide the fate of PEP 3149.  As someone who might serve a similar role in the future, I would value a second person to sanity check my own thoughts on the matter and to identify any holes in my understanding (or missed emails :).  I'd say, let's state a preference (not a requirement) for two arbiters for any PEP that's not decided by Guido. Hm... As long as we can make sure not to pick the same pair all the time this makes sense. (Not that I have any objections to how the Georg+Benjamin pair decided PEP 3149 -- to the contrary -- but I think it would be good to spread the power.)

I agree, and a RM as the backup/sanity check would not spread it out. Considering the position is held for 1.5 years (or more) and has in the past been held sequentially by the same person, that wouldn't exactly spread it about. It also limits trying to bring new people into the process as RMs tend to be old-hands and not new blood. Plus we are not about to make the lead on a PEP decision be a new person either.

But if a pair can't be found I think a single BDFM/BDFP will work too.

I agree. I would trust anyone who is given the ability to make a call to listen to reason enough to not necessarily need the sanity check. But a duopoly is not a bad thing overall either.

We'd talked before about allowing the RM for the target version to make the decision.  Maybe the RM can serve as that second arbiter when no other obvious candidate is available. Good fallback plan.

As long as it gets spread around and the fallback is not the default, I agree.

Raymond, you identified a great set of criteria that the arbiters should use to guide them to a decision.  I'm willing to write up an informational PEP that codifies this and any other guidelines we come up with for non-BDFL PEP decisions.

Finally a reminder to PEP authors that it is your responsibility to shepherd your PEP through the process.  Don't be a pest, but do keep an eye on the release calendar so that you're not scrambling for a snap decision at the last minute.  18 months can go by quickly. :) Well, realistically, there's only so much grief that anyone PEP author can be expected to put up with. I expect that a lot of PEPs won't be written or will be withdrawn in the face of prolonged discussion. Early selection of a BDFM (maybe the M can also refer to mentorship) ought to help in encouraging where encouragement would help -- and of course sometimes the best thing to do is to encourage the PEP author to drop the idea, if no consensus is in view (or if the author is particularly hard-headed).

Hopefully PEPs like this will get stopped before they even get checked in. The PEP editors have been sending PEPs back to their authors to share on python-ideas first for a little while now and that seems to have helped make sure the PEPs that do reach us are of sufficient quality.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list