[Python-Dev] proposed amendments to PEP 1

[David Goodger]

The following paragraph is from PEP 1, "PEP Work Flow" section:

     Once the authors have completed a PEP, they must inform the PEP
     editor that it is ready for review.  PEPs are reviewed by the BDFL
     and his chosen consultants, who may accept or reject a PEP or send
     it back to the author(s) for revision.

I propose adding the following text:

     ...  The BDFL may also initiate a PEP review, first notifying the
     PEP author(s).

In addition, I think it would be useful to add some text describing
the PEP acceptance criteria.  Something like the following:

     For a PEP to be accepted it must meet certain minimum criteria.
     It must be a clear description of the proposed enhancement.  The
     enhancement must represent a net improvement.  The implementation,
     if applicable, must be solid and must not complicate the
     interpreter unduly.  Finally, a proposed enhancement must be
     "pythonic" in order to be accepted by the BDFL.  (However,
     "pythonic" is an imprecise term; it may be defined as whatever is
     acceptable to the BDFL.  This logic is intentionally circular.)

     See PEP 2 for standard library module acceptance criteria.

Please comment.

-- 
David Goodger                    <http://starship.python.net/~goodger>
Python Enhancement Proposal (PEP) Editor <http://www.python.org/peps/>

(Please cc: all PEP correspondence to <peps@python.org>.)