On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 05:09, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 12:55, M.-A. Lemburg <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
>
> I find it rather unusual that we are pushed to vote on PEPs
> which will just have been finished in writing tonight.
>
> Shouldn't people who were not involved in the individual creation
> processes at least get two weeks to review the final work
> to make up their mind before entering a voting period ?

That's probably the thing that bothers me most, as well. That and the
fact that once I've cast my vote, I can't change it - so I really have
to defer voting until the last minute, in case someone comes up with a
compelling argument for one proposal that I hadn't thought of.

OK, so it seems you're unhappy that you only have a day to vote since you can't change your vote ...
 

I made a deliberate choice *not* to get involved in the discussions
while the proposals were being prepared, because I find it far too
easy to get an impression of a proposal from an early draft and then
misjudge the proposal by not updating my views once it's updated. I
don't want to do that with this decision, as it's pretty important (!)
and so I've held off reading any of the proposals until they are
announced as final. And yet, it looks like once they are announced,
there's a possibility that people will start voting and then excuse
themselves from discussion (because once you've voted, there's no
point discussing any further). I can read them, but may not have
anyone to discuss them with once I've done so... That doesn't sound
like an ideal way of reaching consensus.

... but then you don't like that people can vote over two weeks because you don't want discussions to occur while people can vote to force them to participate in discussions? I might be missing something, but these two issues seem contradictory, especially since we can't exactly force people to not talk about this while voting is open. :)

[I'm going to reply to MAL here as well which is a bit awkward, but it would have been smoother on Discourse ;) ]

It seems like we're completely skipping the review phase of the
regular PEP process and going straight from PEP writing to
a vote:

https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/#id38

which is odd given the importance of this decision and also
odd compared to normal democratic procedures where laws are
first crafted, then put through parliament for discussion and
then decided upon after everyone has had a reasonable chance
for review.
 
I don't know if it's really fair to say the review phase is being skipped. It's not like anyone must vote tomorrow and so there really isn't any time to think things over. You still have the rest of the month to review the PEPs and place your vote. It's no different than someone following a PEP closely, forming their opinion along the way, and then when the final version lands replying with an opinion immediately even if the PEP delegate isn't making a final decision for another two weeks.


Having said all that, it's not like the decision making process will
be changed at this point, so I think that we're going to have to
accept it, flaws and all, as it stands.

It's totally flawed because we all can't agree on anything. :) For example, remember that the voting was going to allow people to change their vote initially in the first version of PEP 8001, but more people wanted the vote to be private than have the ability to change their vote, so the compromise was swapped for preferring privacy.

And as for the two week voting time, that was discussed and generally agreed to way back when the initial timelines were discussed in August and I believe again in September (both here and at the dev sprints). And people specifically wanted more than a week to be able to vote, so it was deliberate to have the voting open for as long as it is (actually if I remember correctly a proposal for voting time was to be from when PEPs finalized until the end of November, which would have put it at about six weeks).