On 21 Sep 2020, at 18:42, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer <arj.python@gmail.com> wrote:



Kind Regards,

Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
github
Mauritius


On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 9:23 PM Barry Scott <barry@barrys-emacs.org> wrote:

This is like RFC that can be draft, accepted or rejected.
RFC's have not needed to change there names.
I'd rather not have PEP's change there names either.

As you say there is a Status in the PEP that is clear.

I see that the RFC docs have more info like "obsoleted by"
and "updated by" info.

I work with RFC's all the time an appreciate the forward and
backward references. So if I'm working on code that refers to
an RFC I can check to see if it is still current for example.

The 3 last mails have not added much to the discussion.
Pinning down on RFC is like saying we'll give cat the same
food as catfish as they both do seem similar and we have not
found the need to change catfish food since we have been giving
them to catfish. I seem to think that people do read each and every
mail in an ongoing thread to know what has already covered so as
to elaborate and enrich the discussion but i have the impression i am wrong.
Saying 'Agile is the new gold' twice or twenty times does not effectively 
make Agile the new gold.

No they are saying that PEP and RFC are the same type of thing with the same
type of users. RFC is older then PEP and could have changed but did not.
The RFC process works. I also think that the PEP process works.

Multiple people independently offered up RFC as similar process.

I do not see what problem PAP will solve that will not create more problems then it
*may* solve. And I'm not convinced that there is a problem to solve.

Barry