On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:
> 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?
It's okay to bug me only if you can't find or agree on a temp dictator.
--
--Guido van Rossum (pytho
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 08:45, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Barry Warsaw 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
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Barry Warsaw 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 *excep
On Sep 02, 2010, at 09:08 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>On Apr 30, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Without a BDFL, I think we need a committee to make decisions, e.g.
>> by majority vote amongst committers.
>
>I like Guido's idea. Just appoint have one of the experienced
>developers
>> Without a BDFL, I think we need a committee to make decisions, e.g. by
>> majority vote amongst committers.
>
> It is better to have one experienced developer decide than to have
> a committee.
I feel that the concept of a BDFM (benevolent dictator for the moment)
has the advantage of a clear v
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
>
> On Apr 30, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Without a BDFL, I think we need a committee to make decisions, e.g. by
>> majority vote amongst committers.
>
> I like Guido's idea. Just appoint have one of the experienced develo
On Apr 30, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Without a BDFL, I think we need a committee to make decisions, e.g. by
> majority vote amongst committers.
I like Guido's idea. Just appoint have one of the experienced developers
who is independent of the proposal and have them be the final
Am 05.05.2010 13:24, schrieb Michael Foord:
> On 05/05/2010 12:15, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> Georg Brandl wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, and I wouldn't want to make these decisions. That person (or
>>> group) needs to have some weight in the community, or there will be a
>>> feeling of "... and who is he
On 05/05/2010 12:15, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Georg Brandl wrote:
I agree, and I wouldn't want to make these decisions. That person (or
group) needs to have some weight in the community, or there will be a
feeling of "... and who is he to decide anyway". We haven't emphasized
RMship in the past
Georg Brandl wrote:
> I agree, and I wouldn't want to make these decisions. That person (or
> group) needs to have some weight in the community, or there will be a
> feeling of "... and who is he to decide anyway". We haven't emphasized
> RMship in the past; it's not a special position, except wh
Am 03.05.2010 18:40, schrieb Guido van Rossum:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On May 01, 2010, at 07:12 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>
IIRC in the IETF this is done by the committee chair. I think it's a
good idea to have this be a single person to avoid endless
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2010/5/3 Guido van Rossum :
>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>> I do think it makes sense for the RM to assume these responsibilities where
>>> Guido either can't or doesn't want to make the final decision. I think it
>>> will fairly substantially
2010/5/3 Guido van Rossum :
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> I do think it makes sense for the RM to assume these responsibilities where
>> Guido either can't or doesn't want to make the final decision. I think it
>> will fairly substantially increase the workload on the R
> In the meantime, let's groom Benjamin to be the Sacred Next Uncle Galvanizing
> the Gamut of Language Evolution.
I don't think anybody having such a position permanently can really work.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.or
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On May 01, 2010, at 07:12 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
>>> IIRC in the IETF this is done by the committee chair. I think it's a
>>> good idea to have this be a single person to avoid endless indecision.
>>
>>It then seems that this role should
On May 01, 2010, at 07:12 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> IIRC in the IETF this is done by the committee chair. I think it's a
>> good idea to have this be a single person to avoid endless indecision.
>
>It then seems that this role should go to the release manager of the
>upcoming feature release.
On Apr 30, 2010, at 04:28 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
>Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>> As to Guido's point about the decision making process, Nick's right. I just
>>> want to make sure we can capture the resolution in the PEP, be it by BDFL
>>> pronouncement or "hey, silence is acceptance" email.
>>
>> I
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> but in fact, the scripts make Resolution optional (it's kind of a pain to make
> it required just for Standards Track PEPs - contributions welcome).
It will also be a pain to retroactively update older PEPs with the
newly-required metadata; l
On May 01, 2010, at 08:58 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 21:09, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>>Though maybe it should be called Conclusion instead of Accepted and
>>>used for Rejected PEPs, as well?
>>
>> Good point. What do you think about 'Resolution'?
>
>Fine with me.
I've updat
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 02:00, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Guido van Rossum
> wrote:
> [..]
> >>>
> >>> Without a BDFL, I think we need a committee to make decisions, e.g. by
> >>> majority vote amongst committers.
> >>
> >> Couldn't we just go with the FLUFL?
> >
> > I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Benjamin Peterson
>> wrote:
>>> 2010/4/30 Maciej Fijalkowski :
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Benjamin Peterson
wrote:
>
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis v.loewis.de> writes:
>>
>> I think having a single body/person pronounce on all PEPs is sufficient;
>> as that person should certainly listen to the opinions of the respective
>> experts.
>
> The issue is more a question of
> Then it's not obvious that we will have many PEPs in the future.
Given Guido's Theorem: the PEPs yet to be written will hopefully
outnumber the PEPs written so far.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.o
Martin v. Löwis v.loewis.de> writes:
>
> I think having a single body/person pronounce on all PEPs is sufficient;
> as that person should certainly listen to the opinions of the respective
> experts.
The issue is more a question of personal bandwidth. Giving an informed decision
requires reading
> Of course some PEPs could concern several categories, so we would
> still need some kind of Pep dictator if there's no consensus. So what
> about electing a BPC every year ?
I think having a single body/person pronounce on all PEPs is sufficient;
as that person should certainly listen to the o
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
[..]
>>>
>>> Without a BDFL, I think we need a committee to make decisions, e.g. by
>>> majority vote amongst committers.
>>
>> Couldn't we just go with the FLUFL?
>
> IIRC in the IETF this is done by the committee chair. I think it's a
> g
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 21:09, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>Though maybe it should be called Conclusion instead of Accepted and
>>used for Rejected PEPs, as well?
>
> Good point. What do you think about 'Resolution'?
Fine with me.
Cheers,
Dirkjan
___
Python
> IIRC in the IETF this is done by the committee chair. I think it's a
> good idea to have this be a single person to avoid endless indecision.
It then seems that this role should go to the release manager of the
upcoming feature release. Assuming Georg can accept this additional
responsibility.
Steve Holden wrote:
> The last time I was in a UK builders' yard I hear someone asking for
> "two meter pieces of two by four". At the time the UK was notionally
> metric (and the timber was planed to the nearest metric size) but the
> old names still survived.
Yeah, a 2x4 is still a 2x4 here as w
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2010/4/30 Antoine Pitrou :
>> Jesse Noller gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Consider this a plaintitive -1 to any sort of rule-or-decision based
>>> on committee.
>>>
>>> I'd much rather a 2x4 to the forehead.
>>
>> Oops, sorry but what does "
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Benjamin Peterson
> wrote:
>> 2010/4/30 Maciej Fijalkowski :
>>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Benjamin Peterson
>>> wrote:
2010/4/30 Antoine Pitrou :
> Jesse Noller gmail.com> writes:
Michael Foord wrote:
> On 01/05/2010 00:08, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>> 2010/4/30 Antoine Pitrou:
>>
>>> Jesse Noller gmail.com> writes:
>>>
Consider this a plaintitive -1 to any sort of rule-or-decision based
on committee.
I'd much rather a 2x4 to the forehead.
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2010/4/30 Maciej Fijalkowski :
>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Benjamin Peterson
>> wrote:
>>> 2010/4/30 Antoine Pitrou :
Jesse Noller gmail.com> writes:
>
> Consider this a plaintitive -1 to any sort of rule-or-decisi
2010/4/30 Maciej Fijalkowski :
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Benjamin Peterson
> wrote:
>> 2010/4/30 Antoine Pitrou :
>>> Jesse Noller gmail.com> writes:
Consider this a plaintitive -1 to any sort of rule-or-decision based
on committee.
I'd much rather a 2x4 to the
On 01/05/2010 00:10, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2010/4/30 Antoine Pitrou:
Jesse Noller gmail.com> writes:
Consider this a plaintitive -1 to any sort of rule-or-decision based
on committee.
I'd much rather a 2x4 to t
On 01/05/2010 00:08, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
2010/4/30 Antoine Pitrou:
Jesse Noller gmail.com> writes:
Consider this a plaintitive -1 to any sort of rule-or-decision based
on committee.
I'd much rather a 2x4 to the forehead.
Oops, sorry but what does "a 2x4 to the forehea
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2010/4/30 Antoine Pitrou :
>> Jesse Noller gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Consider this a plaintitive -1 to any sort of rule-or-decision based
>>> on committee.
>>>
>>> I'd much rather a 2x4 to the forehead.
>>
>> Oops, sorry but what does "
2010/4/30 Antoine Pitrou :
> Jesse Noller gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Consider this a plaintitive -1 to any sort of rule-or-decision based
>> on committee.
>>
>> I'd much rather a 2x4 to the forehead.
>
> Oops, sorry but what does "a 2x4 to the forehead" mean?
> (and "plaintitive" by the way?)
The f
Jesse Noller gmail.com> writes:
>
> Consider this a plaintitive -1 to any sort of rule-or-decision based
> on committee.
>
> I'd much rather a 2x4 to the forehead.
Oops, sorry but what does "a 2x4 to the forehead" mean?
(and "plaintitive" by the way?)
Regards
Antoine.
On Apr 30, 2010, at 3:51 PM, "Martin v. Löwis"
wrote:
As to Guido's point about the decision making process, Nick's
right. I just
want to make sure we can capture the resolution in the PEP, be it
by BDFL
pronouncement or "hey, silence is acceptance" email.
I don't think "silence is
Steve Holden wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Without a BDFL, I think we need a committee to make decisions, e.g. by
majority vote amongst committers.
>>> Couldn't we just go with the FLUFL?
>> Not sure whether that's a serious proposal (April 1 is already some days
>> back now). As a star
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>> Without a BDFL, I think we need a committee to make decisions, e.g. by
>>> majority vote amongst committers.
>> Couldn't we just go with the FLUFL?
>
> Not sure whether that's a serious proposal (April 1 is already some days
> back now). As a starting point, Barry would
>> Without a BDFL, I think we need a committee to make decisions, e.g. by
>> majority vote amongst committers.
>
> Couldn't we just go with the FLUFL?
Not sure whether that's a serious proposal (April 1 is already some days
back now). As a starting point, Barry would have to indicate whether he
i
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>> As to Guido's point about the decision making process, Nick's right. I just
>>> want to make sure we can capture the resolution in the PEP, be it by BDFL
>>> pronouncement or "hey, silence is acceptance" email.
>>
>
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> As to Guido's point about the decision making process, Nick's right. I just
>> want to make sure we can capture the resolution in the PEP, be it by BDFL
>> pronouncement or "hey, silence is acceptance" email.
>
> I don't think "silence is acceptance" will work out in pra
> As to Guido's point about the decision making process, Nick's right. I just
> want to make sure we can capture the resolution in the PEP, be it by BDFL
> pronouncement or "hey, silence is acceptance" email.
I don't think "silence is acceptance" will work out in practice. For
issues where a PEP
On Apr 28, 2010, at 09:22 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 23:55, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> I believe the more important part of Barry's suggested change here is
>> requiring a link to the archived message (usually from python-dev) where
>> the PEP was accepted (be it directly by
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 23:55, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I believe the more important part of Barry's suggested change here is
> requiring a link to the archived message (usually from python-dev) where
> the PEP was accepted (be it directly by you as BDFL, or by consensus
> from a "sufficient" number
Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> When PEP 3147 was accepted, I had a few folks ask that this be recorded in
>> the
>> PEP by including a link to the BDFL pronouncement email. I realized that
>> there's no formal way to express this in a PEP, and many PEPs in fact don't
>> record more than the fact that
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> I have two somewhat unrelated thoughts about PEPs.
>
> * Accepted: header
>
> When PEP 3147 was accepted, I had a few folks ask that this be recorded in the
> PEP by including a link to the BDFL pronouncement email. I realized that
> there's
Sounds good to me (from my phone on my way to WWW2010).
On Apr 27, 2010 10:49 AM, "Barry Warsaw" wrote:
I have two somewhat unrelated thoughts about PEPs.
* Accepted: header
When PEP 3147 was accepted, I had a few folks ask that this be recorded in
the
PEP by including a link to the BDFL prono
51 matches
Mail list logo
