On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 7:32 AM Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 15:19, David Mertz <mertz@gnosis.cx> wrote:
>
> As a candidate for the new SC, if elected I would certainly find it more useful to have more specific thoughts from the outgoing SC than simply "we recommend." How divided was the vote? Who took the sides? What were the major points of disagreement? That sort of thing.

My understanding was that the outgoing SC would fully brief the new
SC. The mail here is simply a summary view for the information of the
wider python-dev community.

Paul, this is a good summary of why the SC posted its recommendation for the incoming SC.


Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about it. It's very much a good
thing in terms of transparency, something the SC seems to still be
trying to find the right balance on, but I feel that having seen this,
I'd be left with a lot of unanswered questions if the incoming SC ends
up rejecting the proposal, and therefore I don't really know how to
view the information with that context.

That's a fair point. We expect to do a hand-off meeting with the new SC to discuss. Although personally I would like to see a pattern matching solution, we didn't have consensus within the existing SC for many of the reasons already discussed in other posts. We felt it was best to give the new SC an opportunity to make the decision.


 
Paul
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-leave@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/KA3MJOZIKMJ3P2UCAYOJEGJASNF72GD5/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/