On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:33 PM, anatoly techtonik firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Author is me, so you can ask directly. Why I didn't propose to redesign? Because people will assume that somebody will need to write PEP and will force me to write one. I don't believe in "redesign by specification" like current PEP process assumes and people accuse me of being lazy and trolling them, because I don't want to write the PEPs. Damn, I believe in iterative development and evolution, and I failed to persuade coredevs that practices digged up by people under the "agile" label is not some sort of corporate bullshit. So it is not my problem now. I did all I am capable of.
Why, exactly, is it that you don't want to author a PEP? Is it because you don't have the time to devote to chairing the discussion and all? If so, you could quite possibly persuade someone else to. I'd be willing to take on the job; convince me that your core idea is worth pursuing (and make clear to me precisely what your core idea is), and I could do the grunt-work of writing. But you say that you "don't *believe in*" the process, which suggests a more philosophical objection. What's the issue, here? Why are you holding back from such a plan? *cue the troll music*
There are many Pythons in the world. You can't just hack on CPython and expect everything to follow on from there. Someone has to explain to the Jython folks what they'll have to do to be compatible. Someone has to write something up so MicroPython can run the same code that CPython does. Someone, somewhere, has to be able to ensure that Brython users aren't caught out by your proposed change. PEPs provide that. (They also provide useful pointers for the "What's New" lists, eg PEP 441.)
So, are you proposing a change to Python? Then propose it.