Le 20/07/2018 à 02:51, Ethan Furman a écrit :
My first issue with this model is, as discussed above, a lack of a consistent vision. A BDFL is not just there to say, "this PEP is accepted," but also to say, "change this one piece here, remove that piece there, add this" -- definitely not something easily done by 100+ voters.
My second issue is qualifications: there are plenty of PEPs that I either have no interest in or whose field I have no experience with, and my voting on those PEPs would be nonsensical; when that happens to a BDFL s/he appoints a BDFOP.
My third issue is, quite simply, time. Working on patches takes time; reviewing PRs takes time; and being a good voting citizen takes lots and lots of time -- and we're all volunteers. Time is at a premium.
This is true. But it's a problem for the BDFL even more. Our ex-BDFL resigned because of pressure and exhaustion. Why would another BDFL fare better?
Victor pointed out something I didn't know: that several prominent core devs (him, Brett Cannon) recently suffered from breakdown/burnout/depression.
I find the PEP-delegate to be a powerful concept. Why wouldn't *every* PEP have a PEP-delegate? This way we don't need a BDFL anymore. We can discuss how to nominate PEP-delegates (Nick had an interesting proposal).