[Python-Dev] Re: Revamping Python's Numeric Model

[Greg Stein]

On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 12:21:14PM +0100, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
>...
> > And a request to all Python-Devvers: please direct comments directly
> > to me, and I promise I'll summarize them all in the PEP. As soon as
> > I get a PEP number,

Euh... is process getting in the way of progress?

Allocate yourself a PEP number and publish the darn thing. If you don't feel
comfortable grabbing a PEP number, then just post it to the list or
something.

One of the worst things that can happen is to feel locked in by a cumbersome
process. Open Source works because people can flow at their own speed,
independent of what is happening with others. If Guido and company are too
busy to update syncmail... no problem! Thomas has time and inclination and
jumps in to fix it. Somebody too busy to revamp the headers for ANSI C? No
worries... we have a lot of volunteers just ready and able to do that.

But you throw in the gates? The locks? The process? It halts.

> > I'll publish an updated version, with all
> > objections and open issues sumarized.
> 
> Yes, that is a tricky part of the PEP procedure: not commenting in the
> public initially. I think PEP authors can contribute by not posting
> the text of their PEP publically.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. That a PEP author should develop the
PEP entirely in private? Only when it is fully-cooked, that it should be
published?

Bleh. A PEP should be a work-in-progress. Publish an empty version. Publish
a first draft. Revise. Revise. Revise.

Comments on PEPs are generated when people feel their are listened to. If a
PEP author develops a PEP entirely in secret, then the feedback is going to
be diminished because it is hard for people to really know if their comments
and ideas are being captured and considered. When you have that feedback
loop and the positive reinforcement, then you will engender more commentary.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/