On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Brett Cannon email@example.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Chris Jerdonek firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Brett Cannon email@example.com wrote:
And please do not CC the peps mailing list on discussions. It should only be used to mail in new PEPs or acceptable patches to PEPs.
PEP 1 should perhaps be clarified if the above is the case. Currently, PEP 1 says all PEP-related e-mail should be sent there:
"The PEP editors assign PEP numbers and change their status. Please send all PEP-related email to firstname.lastname@example.org (no cross-posting please). Also see PEP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow below."
as well as:
(Incidentally, the statement not to cross-post seems contradictory if a PEP-related e-mail is also sent to python-dev, for example.)
But it very clearly states to NOT cross-post which is exactly what Anatoly did and that is what I take issue with the most. I personally don't see any confusion with the wording. It clearly states that if you are a PEP author you should mail the peps editors and NOT cross-post. If you are an editor, make sure any emailing you do with an individual CCs the list but do NOT cross-post.
I don't disagree that he shouldn't have cross-posted. I was just pointing out that the language should be clarified. What's confusing is that the current language implies that one shouldn't send any PEP-related e-mails to any mailing list other than peps@. In particular, how can one discuss PEPs on python-dev or python-ideas without violating that language (e.g. this e-mail which is related to PEP 1)? It is probably just a matter of clarifying what "PEP-related" means.