Stripping the list of addressees, since I'm pretty sure all the people who will *make* the decision read Python-Dev regularly, except perhaps Carol. Paul Moore writes:
Thanks for all of these. I appreciate the time you took locating them for me. But I do have to say that I still can't really follow any useful "thread of discussion" - it all seems very fragmented, and it's difficult to see the progress towards consensus. Maybe that's just because I'm too used to mailing lists :-)
Please, let's not start by privileging any particular type of channel in this discussion. I know what I like, but it's far more important to have a single place to refer to past discussion IMO. It's bad enough with python-ideas and python-dev. Maybe this fragmentation is OK in the long run, but at least while the Steering Council is shaking down (say, until release of 3.9?), the Council should consider anointing two archived "channels of record", one for private deliberations of the Council itself (for the sake of future members), and one for PEP discussions. Of course if the SC chooses Discourse for the PEP channel, people *will* discuss PEPs on Python-Dev and IRL. The point is "no fair pointing people to *other* channels for reference". If you want to make a public argument, make it in the proper place. Everything else is effectively private. If you want to refer to that in the public discussion, read it into the public record. The stricture for the Council deliberation channel is different, since I expect the archives would be private to Council members: if you came into this discussion in the middle, what conversations would you want to be able to review? While I'm here, is there a place where general Pythonistas can bring matters to the attention of the Council? Steve