[Python-Dev] PEP process entry point and ill fated initiatives

Georg Brandl g.brandl at gmx.net
Fri Nov 29 19:08:24 CET 2013

Am 29.11.2013 10:16, schrieb Kristján Valur Jónsson:
> Reading the defect, I find people being unnecessarily obstructive. 
> Closing the ticket, twice, is a rude, and unnecessary action.  How about
> acknowledging that these waters are dark and murky and help making things better?
> Surely, documenting processes can only be an improvement?
> A lot has changed in open source development in the last 10 years.  The
> processes we have are starting to have the air of cathedral around them.

First, please note that many of Anatoly's tickets are not closed out of hand,
because they represent a valid issue.

In this specific case, the fact is simply that the PEP process has hardly
anything at all to do with the peps repository, and therefore looking for
PEP process info in its README.txt is irrelevant.  Yes, documenting processes
is good, and that's what the devguide is for.

The PEP process is all about discussion.  New developers who propose a PEP
typically do not submit a PEP directly but are encouraged to discuss their
idea first on python-ideas or python-dev.  There is no "entry point" problem
at all since they are then pointed to mail their draft to peps at python.org.

This is also why it does not make sense to open pull requests against the
repository (this may be what you allude to with your changes in 10 years).
The PEP repo is handled by the PEP editors (and other core committers).
New PEPs are checked for format and readability by the editors.

In short, this issue tries to address a problem where none exists, and that
is why it was closed.  I cannot see why you would call that unnecessary,
because I hope you don't think that the more open issues are languishing
in the tracker the better :)


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list