Hmm, I certainly never intended to come across that way.
Personally, I've voted on this issue, and I don't want my vote to be
taken as anything more than one of many. When we're conducting a PyPA
vote, that's how it works, and is how things should work. It is a
democratic process.
I do think the vote was premature. That's a purely personal feeling,
and I didn't mention it until someone else (Pradyun) said the same. At
which point I agreed. But it's still a personal expression of an
opinion. Maybe out of place on a voting thread, but so is a lot of
what's getting said here (which is *why* I think more discussion
should have taken place on Discourse before the vote). But whatever,
you can ignore my opinion, I have no special authority in PyPA
governance matters.
The point I made about provisional status was a comment on how I'd act
when I'm acting as PEP delegate. And that's *not* a democratic
process. Quite the opposite, it's a case of one person having final
authority (as in the original term, BDFL). It's completely democratic
who gets to *be* PEP delegate (any PyPA committer can volunteer) but I
am the choice if no-one does (by appointment of the SC, for what it's
worth). So I feel that my view on the usefulness of provisional status
for PEPs (as informed by what happened here) might be helpful for
people to know. Even if only to encourage people who disagree with my
view to be more willing to volunteer for the role themselves. Again,
off topic, and so I won't say any more on the matter here.
If there's anything else I've said that implies I feel that I have
more power than other PyPA members in a vote, then please point it
out. I'll either explain what I meant, or if I was in the wrong, I'll
retract what I said, apologise, and correct my behaviour in future.
The whole PEP 660 business was extremely stressful for me at the time.
My apologies if I'm now failing to be sufficiently objective as a
result of the fallout from it.
Paul
PS My comment about referring to process was intended completely
seriously. The PyPA does have agreed and documented processes, but a
lot of the time, we don't seem to follow them very closely, preferring
to keep things informal. I seem to have ended up frequently pointing
people at the process docs, which is not a role I like or want. That
may be my own fault, and maybe I should just stop. But I would be
*extremely* happy if someone took on the role of making sure we follow
our own processes correctly. I really don't want to be that person,
though.
On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 at 20:18, Ian Stapleton Cordasco
Just to be clear, this sounds like "two people have more powerful votes than the rest of the democracy".
Sent from my phone with my typo-happy thumbs. Please excuse my brevity
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021, 04:02 Bernat Gabor
wrote: Hi,
I get that this seems to be a controversial topic, but IMHO the fact that it is (and the current vote count shows that) tells me that it's probably not time to mark it final just yet. For reference, both the flit and the setuptools maintainers object against it. That being said I'm done discussing this any further. I get that we have differing opinions and I'm willing to accept that. I've called the vote because I've agreed with Paul that we will not reach an agreement, and instead of bikeshedding our arguments any further let democracy do its job (and the arguments people tried to raise after did not change my mind either). Happy new year to everyone,
Bernat
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 9:53 AM Paul Moore
wrote: On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 at 08:40, Pradyun Gedam
wrote: At best, I feel putting this up for a “vote” either way is ridiculously premature — given that folks are elaborating their reasoning in long form in addition to their “vote”, and the fact that there seems to be a lack of discussion on this overall (and that this is being done during a holiday period).
To be honest, I agree. My comment on Discourse was "A PyPA vote is probably the nearest equivalent for packaging, so if we can’t reach consensus, I suggest someone puts it to a PyPA vote". We certainly made no attempt to get consensus on Discourse before Bernát started the vote here. If I felt that the decision mattered that much, I'd have objected myself - but to be honest, I think moving to Final is little more than a formality at this stage, it's not as if we're going to approve incompatible changes which would break all of the projects Stéphane mentioned on Discourse.
Frankly, I'm now convinced that Provisional status for packaging PEPs (at least the interoperability ones) is unworkable, for basically the reasons stated by Ian, and personally, I will definitely *not* be approving any new PEPs as Provisional. If they don't make the case to be Final from the start, they can be rejected or sent back for revision before acceptance. (Obviously, other PEP delegates can take whatever view they prefer).
I’m not happy that I’m being that guy who shouts “process” to stop things but we explicitly decided to have a discussion + delegate-decides for technical things and discussion + vote model for governance things. Let’s follow that.
Thanks for being that person, nevertheless. I'm sick of being the one who refers to process all the time myself, so it's good to have someone else help out :-)
Paul.
_______________________________________________ PyPA-Committers mailing list -- pypa-committers@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to pypa-committers-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/pypa-committers.python.org/ Member address: graffatcolmingov@gmail.com