Please be careful about changing PEPs post-submission to the SC
This is a personal plea (i.e. not coming from the SC at all), but in the last month we have had PEPs changed twice post-submission to the SC. That's a big time sink as we take multiple meetings to discuss a PEP and having things change underneath us causes us to have to re-evaluate our discussions (and I know I pretty much start thinking about PEPs once they are submitted, whether we are actively discussing them or not and I'm probably not the only SC member who does this). I know no one did this maliciously or anything, but since it's happened twice now I just want to ask people be cognizant of this. Please reach out to the SC if you want to make a change so we can discuss whether we think it will help/hurt the PEP, etc. and we are also not taken off-guard by things shifting (assume we don't monitor the commits and PRs to the peps repo, so unless you explicitly say, "hold on", we won't realize discussions are ongoing in a PR or anything). If that means withdrawing your PEP for consideration for a while that's totally fine and it won't hurt your chances of acceptance once you're at a stable state with your PEP. Once again, this is a personal ask and no one is mad at anyone. I'm just asking people be very clear in communicating with us when they want to make a change to a PEP or they have suddenly have an open issue they are still discussing after they open an issue in the steering-council repo for us to review a PEP and need us to stop considering their PEP for a while.
I know PEP 646 was one of these. In our defense, we *did* notify the SC that there was a pending issue ( https://github.com/python/steering-council/issues/59#issuecomment-951728233), although at the time we didn't anticipate it to become such a contentious discussion between the PEP authors. (Though, while contentious, it's still a minor edge case in the PEP, and I don't think it would affect the SC's position which way we eventually end up going.) I'm guessing that the recommended approach in such a case is just to close the SC issue and reopen it once the PEP is updated? On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:04 PM Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-c...>
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 2:25 PM Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
I know PEP 646 was one of these.
I purposefully didn't "out" anyone, but yes. 😄
You definitely did, but I know I had personally assumed it was already resolved and committed based on the wording being past tense and the change being classified as small.
Yeah, probably not a big deal in the end.
I'm guessing that the recommended approach in such a case is just to close the SC issue and reopen it once the PEP is updated?
Yeah, I think so. Just saying something like, "closing this for now as we have discovered something that we need to resolve first; will re-open and leave a comment when we are ready again" is helpful to let us know to simply halt thinking and discussing the PEP.
I know PEP 646 was one of these. In our defense, we *did* notify the SC that there was a pending issue ( https://github.com/python/steering-council/issues/59#issuecomment-951728233), although at the time we didn't anticipate it to become such a contentious discussion between the PEP authors. (Though, while contentious, it's still a minor edge case in the PEP, and I don't think it would affect the SC's position which way we eventually end up going.) I'm guessing that the recommended approach in such a case is just to close the SC issue and reopen it once the PEP is updated? On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:04 PM Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-c...>
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 2:25 PM Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
I know PEP 646 was one of these.
I purposefully didn't "out" anyone, but yes. 😄
You definitely did, but I know I had personally assumed it was already resolved and committed based on the wording being past tense and the change being classified as small.
Yeah, probably not a big deal in the end.
I'm guessing that the recommended approach in such a case is just to close the SC issue and reopen it once the PEP is updated?
Yeah, I think so. Just saying something like, "closing this for now as we have discovered something that we need to resolve first; will re-open and leave a comment when we are ready again" is helpful to let us know to simply halt thinking and discussing the PEP.
participants (3)
-
Brett Cannon -
Guido van Rossum -
Kyle Stanley