I don't think this really works. A PEP has to present a consistent
view of the world, and works as a cohesive whole. Arguments against a
PEP don't form a PEP in themselves, they don't need to be consistent
with each other; they merely oppose a particular set of propositions.
So an "anti-PEP" would not be anything like a PEP; it would just be a
list of assorted arguments.
I agree, and that's what the Rejected Ideas section is supposed to capture.
When I read the description of Rejected Ideas in PEP 1, it seems like it's more for ideas that have been rejected that are still in line with the overall PEP / motivation.
We can change PEP 1 if necessary to make people feel more comfortable in using the Rejected Ideas section to record objections.
It seems like what Mark is suggesting would fit better in a separate "Arguments Against" section. I guess it would be possible to include "reject the PEP" as a rejected idea or each individual argument against as its own rejected "idea," but it would seem a little weird to me to organize it that way.
I personally don't think so. "Don't do this PEP", to me, is still a rejected idea in the eyes of the PEP. 😉
-Brett
I do see that PEP 1 says about the Rationale section:
The rationale should provide evidence of consensus within the community and discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.
But what Mark is suggesting might be too large for the Rationale section.
--Chris
If a PEP is not keeping a record of what is discussed, including opposing views which the PEP is choosing not to accept, then that's a deficiency in the PEP and should be fixed. And if people feel their opposing view was not recorded properly, then that should be brought up.