On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:21 AM James Lu firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Not personally with Brett, but I have seen multiple people try to stop the “reword or remove beautiful is better than ugly in Zen of Python.” The discussion was going in circles and evolved into attacking each other’s use of logical fallacies.
Other than that, my biggest issues with the current mailing system are:
- There’s no way to keep a updated proposal of your own- if you decide to change your proposal, you have to communicate the change. Then, if you want to find the authoritative current copy, since you might’ve forgotten or you want to join he current discussion, then you have to dig through the emails and recursively apply the proposed change. It’s just easier if people can have one proposal they can edit themselves.
That's what the PEP system exists for. But with the "remove the word ugly from the zen" proposal, it's not serious enough for anyone to actually want to write up a PEP about it.
Normally, what happens is that the "authoritative current copy" can always be found at https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-????/ for some well-known PEP number. That PEP generally has a single authoritative author (sometimes two or three, but always a small number). For any proposal that actually has currency, this system does work (well enough that I've wanted to introduce something like it in other contexts).