[Python-ideas] be upfront if you aren't willing to implement your own idea

Fri Jun 23 14:39:13 EDT 2017

"to put it succinctly" -- IMO we shouldn't discuss features without giving
thought to their implementation.

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Brendan Barnwell <brenbarn at brenbarn.net>
wrote:

> On 2017-06-23 09:49, Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>> Everyone, please be upfront when proposing any ideas if you refuse to
>> implement your own idea yourself. It's implicit that if you have an idea
>> to discuss here that you are serious enough about it to see it happen,
>> so if that's not the case then do say so in your first email (obviously
>> if your circumstances change during the discussion then that's
>> understandable). Otherwise people will spend what little spare time they
>> have helping you think through your idea, and then find out that the
>> discussion will more than likely end up leading to no change because the
>> most motivated person behind the discussion isn't motivated enough to
>> actually enact the change.
>>
>> And if you lack knowledge in how to implement the idea or a certain area
>> of expertise, please be upfront about that as well. We have had
>> instances here where ideas have gone as far as PEPs to only find out the
>> OP didn't know C which was a critical requirement to implementing the
>> idea, and so the idea just fell to the wayside and hasn't gone anywhere.
>> It's totally reasonable to ask for help, but once again, please be
>> upfront that you will need it to have any chance of seeing your idea
>> come to fruition.
>>
>> To be perfectly frank, I personally find it misleading to not be told
>> upfront that you know you will need help (if you learn later because you
>> didn't know e.g. C would be required, that's different, but once you do
>> learn then once again be upfront about it). Otherwise I personally feel
>> like I was tricked into a discussion under false pretenses that the OP
>> was motivated enough to put the effort in to see their idea come to be.
>> Had I known to begin with that no one was actually stepping forward to
>> make this change happen I would have skipped the thread and spent the
>> time I put in following the discussion into something more productive
>> like reviewing a pull request.
>>
>
>         That is a reasonable position, but I think if that's really how
> this list is supposed to work then it'd be good to state those requirements
> more explicitly in the list description.  Right now the description (
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas) just says the list
> is for "discussion of speculative language ideas for Python". There is no
> hint that any particular technical qualifications are required other than
> having used Python enough to have an idea about how to improve it.  I also
> don't think such a requirement is obvious even from reading the list
> traffic (since I've rarely seen anyone explicitly state their inability to
> implement, as you suggest, although it does sometimes come up later, as in
> this case).  No doubt this leads to the occasional cockamamie proposal but
> I think it also allows discussion of useful ideas that otherwise might
> never be raised.  Also, the description does mention that at some point
> ideas might get moved on to python-dev; although it's not explicit about
> how this works, I think that creates a vague impression that thinking about
> how or whether you can implement an idea might be something for a later
> stage.
>
>         That said, I don't personally agree with your position here.  My
> impression of discussion on this list is that a good deal of it doesn't
> really have to do with implementation at all.  It has to do with the
> proposal itself in terms of how it would feel to use it, hashing out what
> its semantics would be, what the benefits would be for code readability,
> what confusion it might create etc. --- in short, discussion from the
> perspective of people who USE Python, not people who implement Python.  I
> think that's good discussion to have even if the proposal eventually stalls
> because no one with the right skills has the time or inclination to
> implement it.  It would be a shame for all such discussion to get nipped in
> the bud just because the person with the original proposal doesn't know C
> or whatever.  Also, because, as you say, some people don't know what would
> be needed to implement their ideas, requiring this kind of disclosure might
> perversely muffle discussion from people who know enough to know they don't
> know how to implement their idea, while still allowing all the ideas from
> people who don't even know whether they know how to implement their idea
> --- and the latter are probably more likely to fall into the cockamamie
> category.
>
>         I realize you're not proposing that all such discussion be stopped
> entirely, just that it be tagged as I-can't-implement-this-myself at the
> outset.  However, your last paragraph suggests to me that the effect might
> be similar.  You seem to be saying that (some of) those who do know how to
> implement stuff would like to be able to ignore discussion from anyone who
> doesn't know how to implement stuff.  That's certainly anyone's
> prerogative, but I think it would be a shame if this resulted in a
> bifurcation of the list in which ideas can't reach the attention of people
> who could implement them unless they're proposed by someone who could do so
> themselves.  To me, that would somewhat blur the distinction between
> python-ideas and python-dev, and potentially chill discussion of
> "mid-level" ideas proposed by people who know enough to have a potentially
> useful idea, but not enough to bring it to fruition.  We presumably don't
> want a situation where a person with some amount of knowledge thinks "This
> might be a good idea. . .  but I don't know how to implement it, so if I
> bring it up on the list the more knowledgeable people will ignore it, oh
> well, I guess I won't" --- while a person with no knowledge blithely jumps
> in with "Golly everyone I have this great idea!"  (I don't mean to say that
> is directly what you're proposing, but it is the evolution that came to my
> mind when I read your comment.)
>
>         So to put it succinctly, as someone who's found discussion on this
> list interesting and valuable, I think there is value in having discussion
> about "what would Python be like if this idea were implemented" even if we
> never get very far with "how would we implement this idea in Python".  And
> I would find it unfortunate if discussion of the former were prematurely
> restricted by worries about the latter.
>
> --
> Brendan Barnwell
> "Do not follow where the path may lead.  Go, instead, where there is no
> path, and leave a trail."
>    --author unknown
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20170623/2a0b9a1a/attachment-0001.html>