On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 12:50 PM Kyle Stanley <aeros167@gmail.com> wrote:
Eric V. Smith wrote:
In addition, I find it hard to believe someone couldn't find a sponsor for a well-written PEP. I'm happy to sponsor such a PEP, even if I think it will be rejected. Rejected PEPs serve a useful purpose, too, if only to point to when the same issue comes up in the future.
Do most of the other core developers also share this perspective? Even though PEPs were not intended to be intimidating, they definitely can be for those who are less familiar with the process. I can imagine that many people would think that a "sponsor" would mean fully convincing someone to be completely on board with their idea.
As someone who only more recently began contributing to Python, my previous perception of PEPs were these monolithic technical documents that were well approved by the entire community. I'm slowly starting to see them more as simply being well structured proposals after having seen more of them.
Not a core dev, but from my perspective, PEPs are far too "iconic". People make their first posts to python-ideas under the impression that they should be writing PEPs. No, that's not the case; start with discussion (which doesn't require a sponsor), and *then* start talking about a PEP. By the time you get that far along with a proposal, either your idea has enough support for a core dev to say "yeah, I'll sponsor that" (even if s/he doesn't actually agree with the proposal), or you know you're asking for something controversial (in which case your first hurdle is to convince a core dev). ChrisA