On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Chris Jerdonek <chris.jerdonek@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> 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 <peps@python.org> (no cross-posting
>> please). Also see PEP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow below."
>>
>> as well as:
>>
>> "A PEP editor must subscribe to the <peps@python.org> list. All
>> PEP-related correspondence should be sent (or CC'd) to
>> <peps@python.org> (but please do not cross-post!)."
>>
>> (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.