On Sat, 27 Jul 2019 at 03:51, 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.
Personally, my position is a bit more nuanced. I'm happy enough to sponsor a PEP, but most people's "PEP ideas" are actually still insufficiently well thought out to be worth a PEP, and typically my first comment as a sponsor would be "you don't need a sponsor yet, you need to refine your proposal a lot first". However, from the way a lot of threads on python-ideas go, it's clear that a lot of people aren't really aware of how much work is needed to get a proposal to the point where it's ready for a PEP (and when they get feedback to that effect from the list, they get frustrated at the "negative feedback"). So while I'm happy enough to sponsor a (well-written) PEP, I'm not anywhere near as willing to mentor someone in how to develop a proposal to the point where it's ready for submission as a PEP (because I simply don't have the time). And people tend not to appreciate the difference between those two tasks. Paul