On 07/13/2018 04:20 PM, Steve Dower wrote:
On 13Jul2018 1600, Larry Hastings wrote:
I disagree. My proposal for Python's Council Of Elders is partially based on the Supreme Court Of The United States. For example, SCOTUS judges are appointed for life, and I think PCOE members should be too.
When SCOTUS renders a decision:
* the deliberation is held in private, but then * the judges cast their votes, * the "winning" side writes up the official decision, called "the Court's opinion", * and any member may contribute their own individual opinion, concurring /or/ dissenting, and finally * all votes and opinions contributed to the decision are made public.
I agree with Larry, at least until the point at which we see "the public" aggressively idolising or demonising those members of the Council with whom they agree/disagree. Then I'll change my mind :)
Despite the smiley etc, this is a reasonable point. But! I think it's inevitable. As the BDFL Guido received more than his fair share of idolatry and demonization (cf. the PEP 572 discussion). It's a natural consequence of having identifiable people in charge of a project as popular as Python. Having the PCOE keep its votes / dissent private wouldn't eliminate the consequences of fame for its members--all I'd expect is that it'd be more evenly distributed.
//arry/