[Python-Dev] Consolidating channel of record [was: 581 (Using GitHub issues for CPython) is accepted]

Stephen J. Turnbull turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp
Wed May 15 16:09:30 EDT 2019

Stripping the list of addressees, since I'm pretty sure all the
people who will *make* the decision read Python-Dev regularly, except
perhaps Carol.

Paul Moore writes:

 > Thanks for all of these. I appreciate the time you took locating them
 > for me. But I do have to say that I still can't really follow any
 > useful "thread of discussion" - it all seems very fragmented, and it's
 > difficult to see the progress towards consensus. Maybe that's just
 > because I'm too used to mailing lists :-)

Please, let's not start by privileging any particular type of channel
in this discussion.  I know what I like, but it's far more important
to have a single place to refer to past discussion IMO.  It's bad
enough with python-ideas and python-dev.

Maybe this fragmentation is OK in the long run, but at least while the
Steering Council is shaking down (say, until release of 3.9?), the
Council should consider anointing two archived "channels of record",
one for private deliberations of the Council itself (for the sake of
future members), and one for PEP discussions.

Of course if the SC chooses Discourse for the PEP channel, people
*will* discuss PEPs on Python-Dev and IRL.  The point is "no fair
pointing people to *other* channels for reference".  If you want to
make a public argument, make it in the proper place.  Everything else
is effectively private.  If you want to refer to that in the public
discussion, read it into the public record.

The stricture for the Council deliberation channel is different, since
I expect the archives would be private to Council members: if you came
into this discussion in the middle, what conversations would you want
to be able to review?

While I'm here, is there a place where general Pythonistas can bring
matters to the attention of the Council?


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list