On 23 May 2018 at 05:47, Guido van Rossum firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Steve Dower email@example.com wrote:
On 22May2018 0741, Guido van Rossum wrote:
ISTR there are plenty of PEPs that never get posted to python-ideas because they are discussed on a separate list.
There are often better venues for the initial discussion (such as security-sig, distutils-sig or datetime-sig), but I think that's orthogonal from posting the full text of a PEP.
I don't think that the original rationale for posting the full text of a PEP to a mailing list still applies. The raw text is on GitHub in the python/peps repo, and the formatted text is on python.org. We're not some kind of bureaucratic org that pretends to still live in the world of paper and pencil.
The raw text being on Github rather than hg.python.org makes the rationale for archiving full copies on mail.python.org stronger, not weaker.
That said, if the aim is to keep discussion in another place (such as
github), you really don't want copies floating around any other mailing lists. Eventually I'd hope it comes through for final review though, as I'm sure a number of us are unlikely to click through to github unless we have a specific interest in the topic.
IMO if you can't be bothered to click through on GitHub you forfeit your right to comment. (Which isn't a right anyway, it's a privilege.)
I would never consider it an acceptable process restriction to require people to sign up for an account with a proprietary American software company in order to comment on the future of the Python programming language.
If folks get more feedback than they have the ability to process in a short amount of time, then "Deferred" is a perfectly reasonable state to put a PEP into until they *do* have time to go through and account for the feedback - it isn't like it's a major disaster if we put an idea back on the shelf for a couple of months (or years!), let folks mull it over for a while, and then reconsider it later with fresh eyes.