On 7/26/2019 11:21 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 8:17 AM Batuhan Taskaya <isidentical@gmail.com <mailto:isidentical@gmail.com>> wrote:
Why do i need to convince a core developer for my PEP? AFAIK the steering council can include non core developers (i know it isn't that current case but for the future this is important). And if the last authority who will approve my PEP is the steering council i just need to convince them not core developers.
To convince a majority of the steering council and 0 core developers to make a change, you'd need a hypothetical future steering council with a non-core-developer majority.
Even if we stipulate that this would ever happen (which seems exceedingly unlikely), presumably that majority would change the policy to allow themselves to sponsor PEPs.
(In my opinion if there's even a single steering council member who isn't a core developer, they'd probably be able to convince the rest of the council to add a special exception allowing them to sponsor PEPs; I find it hard to imagine someone being trusted enough to sit on the council without the rest of the council thinking they can be trusted to sponsor a PEP...)
I agree with all of these points. 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. Just be aware that writing a PEP so that it gets to the accept/reject stage can take months of work. At least it has in my case. What you won't find is someone to sponsor a PEP that says something like "remove the GIL", without any details of how to do it. And it's good that no one would sponsor that: it's just noise! This is what the "you must have a sponsor" rule is trying to prevent. It's not trying to prevent well thought out ideas that might not get accepted. Eric