[Python-Dev] Raising objections

["Martin v. Löwis"]

Anthony Baxter wrote:
> I'm not sure how people would prefer this be handled. I don't think we 
> need to have a PEP for it - I don't see PEPs for ctypes, elementtree, 
> pysqlite or cProfile, either. 

I see a significant procedural difference between what happened
for ctypes, elementtree, and pysqlite, as opposed to setuptools.
For all these packages, there was
1. a desire of users to include it
2. an indication from the package maintainer that it's ok
   to include the package, and that he is willing to maintain it
3. some discussion on python-dev, which resulted only in support
   and no objection
4. some (other) committer who "approved" incorporation of the
   library. In essence, that committer is a "second" for the
   package inclusion.

setuptools has 1 and 2, but fails on 3 and 4 so far. There is
discussion now after the fact, but it results in objection.

I'd like to point out the importance of 4: Fredrik Lundh originally
asked "who approved that change", which really meant "who can I
blame for it". I feel that I approved inclusion of ctypes and
elementtree: I talked with the developers on how precisely it
should happen, and I checked then that everything that I thought
should happened indeed happened. And I did the majority of the
communication on python-dev. So the package authors can
get all the praise, and I happily take all the blame.

The same didn't happen for setuptools: there is no second,
so Phillip Eby takes all the praise *and* the blame. It's
still a one-man show.

Now, I know that Neal Norwitz had asked him what the status
is and when it will happen, but he apparently did not want
to *approve* inclusion of that package. Likewise, Guido
van Rossum (apparently) did not want to approve it, either
(he just would not object).

If you (Anthony) want to act as a second for setuptools, I
would feel much happier - because I can then blame you for
whatever problems that decision causes five years from now.

Regards,
Martin