my intention certainly wasn't to try to exclude anybody.  for me, it's the practical matter of the PR UI being more effective than a mailing list thread (in this case referring to a gist), and that we can track proposals easier and link to them from issues (in that same repo) and other PyPA docs.   

also, to be clear, this isn't about thinking PyPA would sidestep the PEP approval process all together.  It's about managing drafts, reviews and updates into that process. 

certainly, this isn't my decision alone to make this change... just stating my preference, and hoping to get others to agree.   Part of my motivation for bringing it up, was do due to trying write a "PyPA Roadmap" recently for pypa.io, and wanting it to be easier to track and link to ideas that people are coming up with (ideas that don't immediately start as draft PEPs)

--Marcus


On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
Marcus Smith <qwcode@gmail.com> writes:

> 1) *Please*, *please*, *please* let's start doing PEP conversations as
> PRs to pypa/interoperability-peps : )

Please keep the conversation on a mailing list where one can participate
without needing to sign up with any particular service provider.

Your proposal would have the effect of excluding people from the
conversation if they don't agree to have a GitHub account. I think it's
valuable to avoid that barrier to entry, needing only an email account.

--
 \           “'Tis strange, — but true; for truth is always strange; / |
  `\    Stranger than fiction.” —“Lord” George Gordon Noel Byron, _Don |
_o__)                                                            Juan_ |
Ben Finney

_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig