Re: [python-committers] Votes on new core dev candidates
On 25.03.2019 23:58, Steve Dower wrote: > On 25Mar2019 1503, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >> On 25.03.2019 16:20, Steve Dower wrote: >>> To be clear, my pushback (on Discourse, since I can only send email from >>> an actual laptop these days but can participate over there from my >>> phone) has been against vague nominations, not the individuals >>> themselves. >>> >>> I'm *very* concerned about the perception of commit rights being >>> "awarded" rather than being a added responsibility specific to CPython. >> >> I'm not sure where you got that perception from. The two candidates >> both want to actively contribute to Python. >> >> It's possible that the nominations did not emphasize this enough, but >> that's an issue with the nomination text, not with the person being >> nominated. > > That's literally what I said. Great, so we're on the same page. >> Yet, the public perception of the discussion is that the persons are >> not qualified enough and that's definitely not going to have a >> productive effect on getting more people helping. > > I don't know where you got *this* from. I haven't seen any criticism of > the candidates themselves - just questions that ought to have been > answered very easily in the nomination (and were answered almost > immediately upon request). I'm reading both this list and discourse (in mailing list mode). Perhaps those comments were mostly on the ML. >>> Isn't this what's been happening? It certainly has been on Discourse. >> >> Not really. I'm not talking about some moderator having to step >> in to take action. I'm talking about the nominators actively >> supporting the discussion by fixing mistakes in the nomination, >> proxying and adding more information (since the candidates cannot >> speak for themselves) and helping to clarify misconceptions. > > Um, that's exactly what happened? I don't understand why you're saying > it didn't (unless someone's edited the history over there between me > reading it and you reading it). The post for Stéphane on discourse still reads the same as the original posting on discourse and this ML. The last edit was on March 22. >> Asking people who have voted -1 or +1 to publicly tell the world why >> they did so is not helpful in this respect, since it just creates bias. >> What people, who are unsure how to vote, really need, is more >> information, not bias. > > This is illogical. Knowing how and why certain people voted is useful > information when you know that person (and it's also why we generally > use options like -1, -0, +0, +1, and sometimes +/-100 ;) ). Without this > added information, the *only* thing we have is bias, and I don't think > we have a big enough group to average out individual bias in such > important decisions as this. I guess we have a different understanding of bias, then :-) I prefer to base my votes and opinions on available information much more than other people's votes and opinions. Using their votes to cover up for lack of information does not make me feel comfortable, so I try to get more information or abstain. In the current case, I do know both candidates well enough to give them my vote. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Mar 26 2019) >>> Python Projects, Coaching and Consulting ... http://www.egenix.com/ >>> Python Database Interfaces ... http://products.egenix.com/ >>> Plone/Zope Database Interfaces ... http://zope.egenix.com/ ::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs ::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ http://www.malemburg.com/ ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[python-committers] [RELEASE] Python 3.8.0a3 is now available for testing
It's time for the third alpha of Python 3.8.0. Go get it here: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-380a3/ Python 3.8.0a3 is the third of four planned alpha releases of Python 3.8, the next feature release of Python. During the alpha phase, Python 3.8 remains under heavy development: additional features will be added and existing features may be modified or deleted. Please keep in mind that this is a preview release and its use is not recommended for production environments. The last alpha release, 3.8.0a4, is planned for 2019-04-29. I am happy to say that this time all buildbots were properly green. Thank you to everybody who worked on that. - Ł signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [python-committers] Vote to promote Stéphane Wirtel as a core dev
On 26.03.2019 05:20, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > >> On Mar 22, 2019, at 8:34 AM, Victor Stinner wrote: >> >> Julien Palard and me (Victor) propose to promote Stéphane Wirtel as >> core developer. We open a vote until March 31 (~one week). "[A >> promotion] is granted by receiving at least two-thirds positive votes >> in a core team vote and no veto by the steering council." >> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0013/#the-core-team > > For some reason, I can't vote on discourse. The message is "you can vote > because you can't post in this topic." So please add this post to the tally. > > On the plus side, I've enjoyed working with Stéphane Wirtel and think he is a > great person and Python enthusiast. That said, I think we should wait. The > contributions thus far have been very light weight. Also, I've not seen > active, critical decision making on the bug tracker that would demonstrate an > understanding of what to approve and what not to approve. Doesn't a good core dev have to have two main characteristics: 1. be passionate about Python and 2. be knowledgeable in a field of expertise ? Decision making is something you grow into with experience and you first have to get a feel for the group you're making decisions for. I don't believe we should make this a number one criterion for voting someone in. > Nominating someone too early puts us all in an awkward position. It's no fun > to vote with a -1. If the nomination has been allowed to mature, this could > be a more positive experience for everyone. We shouldn't have just one > person spewing out nominations and doing it prematurely (imo). We had that > situation happen in the PSF and it quickly degraded as people started > nominating their friends some of whom had only light associations with > Python. In the end, that situation necessitated a reorg to where the new > standard was zero. We already have a number of core-devs who are core devs > in name only, having never made a commit or actively participated in > developing the core. Sorry, Raymond, but the above comment on the PSF isn't quite accurate. At the time when the PSF was invite only, we tried very hard to grow the organization and luckily reached a point where we no longer had the much too comfortable situation of everyone knowing everyone else. It's just natural that people then had to start voting in people based on nomination text only knowledge. While I know that there were many discussions around this at the time (much like we have now on this list), the reorg did not come out of frustration about the way we dealt with the nominations, but instead out of the desire to be an open organization, rather than an elite club. Now, the situation with the core devs is a bit different, since we are actively working together on a project and people put a lot of trust into us. The bar definitely is higher and we cannot simply allow anyone to join. I agree with your point about letting nominations mature, but I'm also concerned about the lack of active core devs and the push back the two nominations are getting. Here we have two very candidates who are very passionate about Python and would like to help, yet we have nothing better to do than to criticize their readiness. We do have to make up our minds: either we do want this group to grow or we don't. If we do, we should probably come up with more structure for nomination texts to make existing group members feel more comfortable about voting someone in based on those, instead of relying on other group members votes and only amplifying them. > Socially, there are two other concerns. One concern is unevenness -- the bar > was very high for some people and very low for others. It really seems to > matter who nominated you and who your friends are. The other concern is > formation of cliques of friends who approve each other's proposals, but > falling into groupthink because of light experience and low diversity of > ideas. Yes, there is a risk and yes, some core devs got in easier than others (think of the need for speed sprint participants), but I think all this is manageable. I don't think that vote amplification is the right way, though, for much the same reasons you state above, hence my push back against that strategy. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Mar 26 2019) >>> Python Projects, Coaching and Consulting ... http://www.egenix.com/ >>> Python Database Interfaces ... http://products.egenix.com/ >>> Plone/Zope Database Interfaces ... http://zope.egenix.com/ ::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs ::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.eg
[python-committers] [RELEASE] Python 3.7.3 is now available
https://blog.python.org/2019/03/python-373-is-now-available.html Python 3.7.3 is now available. Python 3.7.3 is the next maintenance release of Python 3.7, the latest feature release of Python. You can find Python 3.7.3 here: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-373/ See the What’s New In Python 3.7 document for more information about the many new features and optimizations included in the 3.7 series. Detailed information about the changes made in 3.7.3 can be found in its change log. Thanks to all of the many volunteers who help make Python Development and these releases possible! Please consider supporting our efforts by volunteering yourself or through organization contributions to the Python Software Foundation. https://docs.python.org/3.7/whatsnew/3.7.html https://docs.python.org/3.7/whatsnew/changelog.html#python-3-7-3-final https://www.python.org/psf/ -- Ned Deily [email protected] -- [] ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [python-committers] Votes on new core dev candidates
Le 26/03/2019 à 09:58, M.-A. Lemburg a écrit : > >>> Asking people who have voted -1 or +1 to publicly tell the world why >>> they did so is not helpful in this respect, since it just creates bias. >>> What people, who are unsure how to vote, really need, is more >>> information, not bias. >> >> This is illogical. Knowing how and why certain people voted is useful >> information when you know that person (and it's also why we generally >> use options like -1, -0, +0, +1, and sometimes +/-100 ;) ). Without this >> added information, the *only* thing we have is bias, and I don't think >> we have a big enough group to average out individual bias in such >> important decisions as this. > > I guess we have a different understanding of bias, then :-) > > I prefer to base my votes and opinions on available information > much more than other people's votes and opinions. Using their > votes to cover up for lack of information does not make me > feel comfortable, so I try to get more information or abstain. The reason I'd like to know why people voted -1 is not because I plan to vote like them (I can vote on my own - or, in these cases, not vote). It's that I'd like to know what kind of objections people have against those particular contributors becoming core developers. Regards Antoine. ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [python-committers] [RELEASE] Python 3.8.0a3 is now available for testing
On 3/26/2019 5:11 AM, Łukasz Langa wrote: It's time for the third alpha of Python 3.8.0. Go get it here: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-380a3/ This page https://www.python.org/download/pre-releases/ still lists and links to .0a2 ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [python-committers] Votes on new core dev candidates
On 26.03.2019 18:54, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Le 26/03/2019 à 09:58, M.-A. Lemburg a écrit : >> Asking people who have voted -1 or +1 to publicly tell the world why they did so is not helpful in this respect, since it just creates bias. What people, who are unsure how to vote, really need, is more information, not bias. >>> >>> This is illogical. Knowing how and why certain people voted is useful >>> information when you know that person (and it's also why we generally >>> use options like -1, -0, +0, +1, and sometimes +/-100 ;) ). Without this >>> added information, the *only* thing we have is bias, and I don't think >>> we have a big enough group to average out individual bias in such >>> important decisions as this. >> >> I guess we have a different understanding of bias, then :-) >> >> I prefer to base my votes and opinions on available information >> much more than other people's votes and opinions. Using their >> votes to cover up for lack of information does not make me >> feel comfortable, so I try to get more information or abstain. > > The reason I'd like to know why people voted -1 is not because I plan to > vote like them (I can vote on my own - or, in these cases, not vote). > It's that I'd like to know what kind of objections people have against > those particular contributors becoming core developers. That's a fair reason, but you have to consider a couple of side effects: * These forums are public, so whatever negative someone writes is going to stay associated with the candidate. * The person writing the negative feedback may see a backslash as well and again, because it's public, have this associated with him or her. * The vote may still be in favor of signing up the candidate as core dev and the person publishing the negative feedback will have to work together with the candidate. It's usually best to keep such discussions private or at least confined to a smaller circle of people to work around all of the above issues. Cheers, -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Experts (#1, Mar 26 2019) >>> Python Projects, Coaching and Consulting ... http://www.egenix.com/ >>> Python Database Interfaces ... http://products.egenix.com/ >>> Plone/Zope Database Interfaces ... http://zope.egenix.com/ ::: We implement business ideas - efficiently in both time and costs ::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/ http://www.malemburg.com/ ___ python-committers mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
