[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] peps: Update PEP 1 to better reflect current practice (original) (raw)

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Sun May 6 07:08:52 CEST 2012

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 2:56 AM, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:

Thanks for doing this update Nick.  I have just a few comments.

On May 05, 2012, at 02:57 PM, nick.coghlan wrote:

+Developers with commit privileges for the PEP repository may claim +PEP numbers directly by creating and committing a new PEP. When doing so, +the developer must handle the tasks that would normally be taken care of by +the PEP editors (see PEP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow). While I certainly don't mind (in fact, prefer) those with commit privileges to just go ahead and commit their PEP to the repo, I'd like for there to be some communication with the PEP editors first.  E.g. sanity checks on the basic format or idea (was this discussed on python-ideas first?), or reservation of PEP numbers. When you do contact the PEP editors, please also specify whether you have commit privileges or not.  It's too hard to remember or know who has those rights, and too much hassle to look them up. ;)

Good point, especially for committers that haven't done much PEP editing in the past.

OTOH, I'm also happy to adopt an EAFP style rather than LBYL, so that the PEP editors can re-assign numbers or whatever after the fact.  We've done this in a few cases, and it's never been that much of a problem.

Still, core developers needn't block (for too long) on the PEP editors.

I'll see if I can figure out something - I may just put in text like "if you're at all unsure about what needs to be done, email the PEP editors anyway".

+The final authority for PEP approval is the BDFL. However, whenever a new +PEP is put forward, any core developer that believes they are suitably +experienced to make the final decision on that PEP may offer to serve as +the "PEP czar" for that PEP. If their self-nomination is accepted by the +other core developers and the BDFL, then they will have the authority to +approve (or reject) that PEP. This process happens most frequently with PEPs +where the BDFL has granted in principle approval for something to be done, +but there are details that need to be worked out before the PEP can be +accepted. I'd reword this to something like the following:  The final authority for the PEP approval is the BDFL.  However, the BDFL  may delegate the final approval authority to a "PEP czar" for that PEP.  This happens most frequently with PEPs where the BDFL has granted approval  in principle for something to be done, and in agreement with the general  proposals of the PEP, but there are details that need to be worked out  before the final PEP can be approved.  When an PEP-Czar header must be  added to the PEP to record this delegation.  The format of this header is  the same as the Author header. This leave out the whole self-nomination text, which I think isn't very relevant to the official addition of the czar role (sadly, no clever bacronym has come to mind, and BDFOP hasn't really taken off ;).

Including the self-nomination wording was deliberate - it summarises the gist of an off-list conversation between Victor, Guido and myself a while back. At the time, I thought the delegation had to come directly from Guido, but it turned out Guido was happy for people to volunteer for the role (or for PEP authors to suggest someone, which pretty much amounts to the same thing), with the acceptance of nominations covered by the same "rough consensus" rules as checkins (i.e. silence is taken as assent). That way Guido only has to get involved if he is personally interested, or none of the rest of us feel entitled to make the call.

Since the way the czar gets appointed is important, I figured it was worth including.

(The conversation was a while ago though, so hopefully Guido will chime in if I'm mischaracterising what he wrote at the time)

Agreed we should have a new header field to record the BDFL delegate, but I think I'll go with BDFL-Delegate rather than PEP-Czar.

Cheers, Nick.

-- Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list