Dear typing-sig, Typing-related PEPs are becoming more common, and we'd like to propose some changes to how they are handled. First, we feel that it is time to convert PEPs (proposals) to specifications. We're getting to the point where we might refer to a feature as “PEP 589 as amended by PEP 655”. To understand a feature, users (and implementers of typing tools) must read through proposal documents that contain motivation, discussion, and sometimes even information that's obsolete today. The use of PEP numbers in everyday communication makes the field even less accessible to outsiders. The Python Packaging Authority (PyPA) used to be in a similar situation, and moved to a model of [specifications], which contain current information, and PEPs as change proposals, which contain a summary of each change and the reasoning (motivation, rationale, discussion summary) for each change. The work of converting existing PEPs to spec documents is not done, but the eventual goal is clear. We ask you to consider adopting a similar model. [specifications]: https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/ Second, we'd like to see some kind of typing-sig delegation. For PEPs like 655 (Marking individual TypedDict items as required or potentially-missing), which only affect typing.py and external tools, consensus on typing-sig is by far the most important consideration for accepting or rejecting a PEP. If you could appoint a person (or committee) you trust to speak on behalf of typing-sig -- that is, seek consensus on the list and fairly summarize it -- it would simplify the decision process. It could even be the first step toward delegating typing-related PEPs entirely. Happy typing! – Petr, on behalf of the Steering Council