SC requests for typing-sig: specifications & delegation
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
Am 22.03.22 um 11:39 schrieb encukou@gmail.com:
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.
For reference, https://typing.readthedocs.io (source at https://github.com/python/typing) is supposed to become a central repository for typing-related documentation and would be the natural place for such specifications.
- Sebastian
El mar, 22 mar 2022 a las 3:40, encukou@gmail.com escribió:
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.
As Sebastian already said, we have plans to gather such specs at typing.readthedocs.io. We haven't made much progress there, but hopefully we can get to a state where the canonical specs are not just in PEPs.
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.
I've also been thinking that a standing delegation for non-syntactic typing PEPs makes sense.
If he's willing to do it, Guido would be the obvious candidate for a standing delegation.
Happy typing! – Petr, on behalf of the Steering Council _______________________________________________ Typing-sig mailing list -- typing-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to typing-sig-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/typing-sig.python.org/ Member address: jelle.zijlstra@gmail.com
Am 24.03.22 um 04:15 schrieb Jelle Zijlstra:
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.I've also been thinking that a standing delegation for non-syntactic typing PEPs makes sense.
If he's willing to do it, Guido would be the obvious candidate for a standing delegation.
I would second Guido, but Jelle seems another obvious candidate to me as someone who is not only very active in all matters typing (mypy, typeshed, typing), but is also experienced as a PEP editor.
- Sebastian
I would be happy to do it. I personally do not believe that experience as a PEP editor is an important skill when reviewing PEPs from the POV or accepting or rejecting them -- making sure the markup is correct, the grammar flows and the required sections are present is up to the whole PEP editor team (of which I am a founding member also -- but I have few Sphinx skills).
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 2:40 AM Sebastian Rittau srittau@rittau.biz wrote:
Am 24.03.22 um 04:15 schrieb Jelle Zijlstra:
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.
I've also been thinking that a standing delegation for non-syntactic typing PEPs makes sense.
If he's willing to do it, Guido would be the obvious candidate for a standing delegation.
I would second Guido, but Jelle seems another obvious candidate to me as someone who is not only very active in all matters typing (mypy, typeshed, typing), but is also experienced as a PEP editor.
- Sebastian
Typing-sig mailing list -- typing-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to typing-sig-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/typing-sig.python.org/ Member address: guido@python.org
Am 24.03.22 um 17:31 schrieb Guido van Rossum:
[typing-sig delegation]
I would be happy to do it. I personally do not believe that experience as a PEP editor is an important skill when reviewing PEPs from the POV or accepting or rejecting them -- making sure the markup is correct, the grammar flows and the required sections are present is up to the whole PEP editor team (of which I am a founding member also -- but I have few Sphinx skills).
Petr,
despite the lack of much participation in this thread, I believe Guido is a completely uncontroversial choice in this matter and willing to do this. Is there anything that needs to be done to make this "official" from typing-sig's side?
- Sebastian
+1 for Guido and/or Jelle. Both have made huge contributions to the Python-typing ecosystem, and stating as such feels almost fatuous.Best,Alex -------- Original message --------From: Sebastian Rittau srittau@rittau.biz Date: 30/03/2022 12:35 (GMT+00:00) To: typing-sig@python.org, encukou@gmail.com Subject: [Typing-sig] Re: SC requests for typing-sig: specifications & delegation Am 24.03.22 um 17:31 schrieb Guido van Rossum:[typing-sig delegation]> I would be happy to do it. I personally do not believe that experience > as a PEP editor is an important skill when reviewing PEPs from the POV > or accepting or rejecting them -- making sure the markup is correct, > the grammar flows and the required sections are present is up to the > whole PEP editor team (of which I am a founding member also -- but I > have few Sphinx skills).Petr,despite the lack of much participation in this thread, I believe Guido is a completely uncontroversial choice in this matter and willing to do this. Is there anything that needs to be done to make this "official" from typing-sig's side? - Sebastian_______________________________________________Typing-sig mailing list -- typing-sig@python.orgTo unsubscribe send an email to typing-sig-leave@python.orghttps://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/typing-sig.python.org/Member address: alex.waygood@gmail.com
Maybe Jelle and I can do it together. We could be a mini-SC. :-)
Jelle, what do you think? I agree that you have great standing in this community.
--Guido
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 4:45 AM Alex Waygood alex.waygood@gmail.com wrote:
+1 for Guido and/or Jelle. Both have made huge contributions to the Python-typing ecosystem, and stating as such feels almost fatuous.
Best, Alex
-------- Original message -------- From: Sebastian Rittau srittau@rittau.biz Date: 30/03/2022 12:35 (GMT+00:00) To: typing-sig@python.org, encukou@gmail.com Subject: [Typing-sig] Re: SC requests for typing-sig: specifications & delegation
Am 24.03.22 um 17:31 schrieb Guido van Rossum:
[typing-sig delegation]
I would be happy to do it. I personally do not believe that experience as a PEP editor is an important skill when reviewing PEPs from the POV or accepting or rejecting them -- making sure the markup is correct, the grammar flows and the required sections are present is up to the whole PEP editor team (of which I am a founding member also -- but I have few Sphinx skills).
Petr,
despite the lack of much participation in this thread, I believe Guido is a completely uncontroversial choice in this matter and willing to do this. Is there anything that needs to be done to make this "official" from typing-sig's side?
- Sebastian
Typing-sig mailing list -- typing-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to typing-sig-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/typing-sig.python.org/ Member address: alex.waygood@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Typing-sig mailing list -- typing-sig@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to typing-sig-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/typing-sig.python.org/ Member address: guido@python.org
Am 24.03.22 um 17:31 schrieb Guido van Rossum:
[typing-sig delegation]
I would be happy to do it. I personally do not believe that experience as a PEP editor is an important skill when reviewing PEPs from the POV or accepting or rejecting them -- making sure the markup is correct, the grammar flows and the required sections are present is up to the whole PEP editor team (of which I am a founding member also -- but I have few Sphinx skills).
Thank you! I fully agree -- the task here is to *fairly summarize typing-sig discussions*, and that is not the job of a PEP editor. That's not saying any particular PEP editor couldn't do it, of course!
It seems that Guido and Jelle are well trusted in these circles, so next time there's a typing PEP, I'll suggest the SC members to just ask one them rather than read/skim typing-sig discussions. Even better if the PEP authors get a statement from one of them before asking the SC for promouncement :)
This is not a full delegation like we have for packaging. There's some worry in the SC that typing-sig is a bit of a bubble, and the effect on the rest of the language/ecosystem isn't considered as well as it could. I encourage the "typing-sig mini-SC" to do one more thing in addition to summarizing the discussion: predict (or ask for) the issues the SC would raise, and make the PEP authors consider them. If we're consistently on the same page, a standing delegation would be reasonable.
Petr (not officially speaking for the SC this time)
It looks like this "bubble" effect is one of the topics we should address at the typing meetup (Thursday April 28 at PyCon). I am supposed to be organizing a panel on the interaction between typing-sig and the core dev community, with Jelle and Greg and a few typing-sig regulars.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 9:11 AM Petr Viktorin encukou@gmail.com wrote:
Am 24.03.22 um 17:31 schrieb Guido van Rossum:
[typing-sig delegation]
I would be happy to do it. I personally do not believe that experience as a PEP editor is an important skill when reviewing PEPs from the POV or accepting or rejecting them -- making sure the markup is correct, the grammar flows and the required sections are present is up to the whole PEP editor team (of which I am a founding member also -- but I have few Sphinx skills).
Thank you! I fully agree -- the task here is to *fairly summarize typing-sig discussions*, and that is not the job of a PEP editor. That's not saying any particular PEP editor couldn't do it, of course!
It seems that Guido and Jelle are well trusted in these circles, so next time there's a typing PEP, I'll suggest the SC members to just ask one them rather than read/skim typing-sig discussions. Even better if the PEP authors get a statement from one of them before asking the SC for promouncement :)
This is not a full delegation like we have for packaging. There's some worry in the SC that typing-sig is a bit of a bubble, and the effect on the rest of the language/ecosystem isn't considered as well as it could. I encourage the "typing-sig mini-SC" to do one more thing in addition to summarizing the discussion: predict (or ask for) the issues the SC would raise, and make the PEP authors consider them. If we're consistently on the same page, a standing delegation would be reasonable.
Petr (not officially speaking for the SC this time)
Will there be a recording/write-up?
On 30. 03. 22 20:24, Guido van Rossum wrote:
It looks like this "bubble" effect is one of the topics we should address at the typing meetup (Thursday April 28 at PyCon). I am supposed to be organizing a panel on the interaction between typing-sig and the core dev community, with Jelle and Greg and a few typing-sig regulars.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 9:11 AM Petr Viktorin <encukou@gmail.com mailto:encukou@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am 24.03.22 um 17:31 schrieb Guido van Rossum: > > [typing-sig delegation] >> I would be happy to do it. I personally do not believe that experience >> as a PEP editor is an important skill when reviewing PEPs from the POV >> or accepting or rejecting them -- making sure the markup is correct, >> the grammar flows and the required sections are present is up to the >> whole PEP editor team (of which I am a founding member also -- but I >> have few Sphinx skills). Thank you! I fully agree -- the task here is to *fairly summarize typing-sig discussions*, and that is not the job of a PEP editor. That's not saying any particular PEP editor couldn't do it, of course! It seems that Guido and Jelle are well trusted in these circles, so next time there's a typing PEP, I'll suggest the SC members to just ask one them rather than read/skim typing-sig discussions. Even better if the PEP authors get a statement from one of them before asking the SC for promouncement :) This is not a full delegation like we have for packaging. There's some worry in the SC that typing-sig is a bit of a bubble, and the effect on the rest of the language/ecosystem isn't considered as well as it could. I encourage the "typing-sig mini-SC" to do one more thing in addition to summarizing the discussion: predict (or ask for) the issues the SC would raise, and make the PEP authors consider them. If we're consistently on the same page, a standing delegation would be reasonable. Petr (not officially speaking for the SC this time)-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido http://python.org/~guido) /Pronouns: he/him //(why is my pronoun here?)/ http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-change-the-world/
encukou＠gmail.com wrote:
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/
For those on typing-sig who may not have seen it -- I've started a discussion on GitHub here about a possible way forward for the typing docs: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/91533. Feedback welcome!
Best, Alex
participants (6)
-
Alex Waygood -
encukou＠gmail.com -
Guido van Rossum -
Jelle Zijlstra -
Petr Viktorin
-
Sebastian Rittau