On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 14:13, "Martin v. Löwis" martin@v.loewis.de wrote:
It may be that people are concerned that if the PEP will be presented as a decision being made, the opportunity for meaninful input will have passed.
That is not the idea of the PEP process. Instead, it works like this: an enhancement is proposed, and people can discuss it and give feedback. They can indicate support, or suggest improvements, or indicate rejection. After some revisions, the PEP is proposed to the BDFL, who will pronounce. Traditionally, the BDFL has also considered the community view (unless he has a strong opinion on his own).
Could you clarify for me: how binding will your PEP be? ie, will it be closer to a recommendation, or will the final PEP be a final decision about what will (or will not) happen?
If the PEP process is followed (which I recommend it is), then it will be a decision. Notice, however, that the PEP can be rejected (and several PEPs *have* been rejected in the past, including some I wrote).
I'm strongly in favor of this process, even though I'm also opposed to the likely proposition of the PEP (namely, to use something else than subversion - else there would not need to be a PEP). It is *very important* that the PEP provides a complete specification right from the start, or else discussion will revolve around the open issues, with no conclusion. So I'd rather have the PEP suggest that we switch to bzr (say), so that I can vote that down, instead of giving options in its final form.
It ain't going to be wishy-washy; there will be a very obvious suggestion of what to switch to if a switch were to take place.
-Brett