<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/13/2018 04:20 PM, Steve Dower
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:deaf6adc-2cae-0ccd-7fc9-f1d31ba3ab03@python.org">On
13Jul2018 1600, Larry Hastings wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I disagree. My proposal for Python's
Council Of Elders is partially based on the Supreme Court Of The
United States. For example, SCOTUS judges are appointed for
life, and I think PCOE members should be too.
<br>
<br>
When SCOTUS renders a decision:
<br>
<br>
* the deliberation is held in private, but then
<br>
* the judges cast their votes,
<br>
* the "winning" side writes up the official decision, called
"the
<br>
Court's opinion",
<br>
* and any member may contribute their own individual opinion,
<br>
concurring /or/ dissenting, and finally
<br>
* all votes and opinions contributed to the decision are made
public.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree with Larry, at least until the point at which we see "the
public" aggressively idolising or demonising those members of the
Council with whom they agree/disagree. Then I'll change my mind :)</blockquote>
<br>
Despite the smiley etc, this is a reasonable point. But! I think
it's inevitable. As the BDFL Guido received more than his fair
share of idolatry and demonization (cf. the PEP 572 discussion).
It's a natural consequence of having identifiable people in charge
of a project as popular as Python. Having the PCOE keep its votes /
dissent private wouldn't eliminate the consequences of fame for its
members--all I'd expect is that it'd be more evenly distributed.<br>
<br>
<br>
<i>/arry</i><br>
</body>
</html>