2009/6/3 Stephen J. Turnbull firstname.lastname@example.org:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2009, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > > I hope we can learn from this. > > I'm not thrilled with adding more process just because we had a problem > here, and the only obvious solution I see is to require a PEP every time > a module is added. Based on what I've seen of this discussion so far, I > think that cure would at this time be worse than the disease.
One thing I would recommend is that while inclusion is not a matter of voting, people who are recognized as domain experts on Python-Dev *should* try to add their "+1" or "-1" early. Especially if they don't expect to have time to participate actively in discussion.
After all, they can always change their assessment based on either changes or as a response to a persuasive lobby, precisely because it's not a vote.
FWIW, I'd add some points:
1. Publishing the documentation somewhere prominent would help. I don't know if that happened here, but it makes it a *lot* easier for people to "have a quick look". Downloading a zip file, unpacking the docs and opening a HTML file (or worse still, building it first!) can be enough of a barrier to stop people who are pressed for time from commenting. (Once the module was included, it gets into the online Python docs, hence I could read them and comment).
2. Encouraging a clear +1/-1 from people, in addition to discussion on specific points, would clarify things. I believe Martin commented that he hadn't realised that one of the opposing comments was a strong enough objection to count as a -1.
3. Discussion should happen on python-dev, not on the tracker. (Some people may object to this, I know). I saw the call for input to the tracker item, and thought "that's not a module I'm likely to need, I'll leave it to the experts" and did nothing more. When the discussion flared up on python-dev, on the other hand, I kept skimming the discussion, and when I saw something that seemed at my level, I felt encouraged to comment. Also, seeing that there *was* disagreement encouraged me to comment - if the experts aren't agreeing, maybe my non-expert view might be helpful input on usability/intuitiveness.
But I agree, let's not add more process if a bit of focus in the discussion is enough.