[Python-ideas] PEPs: Theory of operation [was: Moving to another forum system ...]

[Wes Turner]

Here are links to the Apache governance docs:

https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/#technical

https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/pmcs.html

Which are the PSF docs for these exact same processes for open source
governance? (In re: to transitioning from BDFL is not dead, but)

https://devguide.python.org/#contributing

https://devguide.python.org/experts/
- is there a different BDFL-delegate org chart, or would this be the page
to add to and refer to?

On Saturday, September 22, 2018, Wes Turner <wes.turner at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, September 22, 2018, Wes Turner <wes.turner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It seems like everything's fine, but I would have no idea, BTW
>>
>
> Would project boards be helpful for coordinating proposal status
> information, or extra process for something that's already working just
> fine?
>
> https://github.com/python/peps/projects
>
> https://github.com/pypa/interoperability-peps/projects
>
> TBH, I like Waffle.io boards, but core team may be more comfortable with
> GH projects with swimlanes?
>
>
>> [] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum_call
>>
>> On Saturday, September 22, 2018, Stephen J. Turnbull <
>> turnbull.stephen.fw at u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> Executive summary:  Writing a PEP is an inherently uncertain process.
>>> Achieving "community consensus" is the goal of the process, not a
>>> precondition.
>>>
>>> Anders Hovmöller writes:
>>>
>>>  >  In general pep1 is frustratingly vague. Terms like “community
>>>  >  consensus” without defining community or what numbers would
>>>  >  constitute a consensus are not fun to read as someone who doesn’t
>>>  >  personally know anyone of the core devs. Further references to
>>>  >  Guido are even more frustrating now that he’s bowed out.
>>>
>>> These terms have little to do with what a new PEP's proponent needs to
>>> think about, though.  A PEP-able proposal by definition involves
>>> uncertainty.  Nobody, not even Guido, can tell you in advance whether
>>> a PEP will be accepted (for implementation).  The PEP process is
>>> rigorous enough that by the time you get close to needing consensus to
>>> proceed, you'll know what it means.
>>>
>>> "Community consensus" is not a condition for *anything* in the PEP
>>> process, except final acceptance.  It is the *goal* of the process.
>>> PEPs are approved (for publication) by default; the only requirement
>>> is editorial completeness.  PEPs are needed for two reasons: (1) to
>>> get the input of the community, both highly competent engineers for
>>> implementation and a variety of users for requirements, to refine a
>>> complex proposal or one with far-reaching implications for the
>>> language, and/or (2) to build a consensus for implementation.  Either
>>> way, by definition the outcome is unclear at the beginning.
>>>
>>> If your concern about "consensus" is that you want to know whether
>>> you're likely to get to consensus, and an accepted PEP, ask somebody
>>> who seems sympathetic and experienced enough to know about what it
>>> looks like on the list when a PEP is going to succeed.  Anything
>>> PEP-able is sufficiently unclear that rules can't be given in PEP 1.
>>> It is possible only to say that Python is now very mature, and there's
>>> a strong conservative bias against change.  That doesn't mean there
>>> aren't changes: Python attracts a lot of feature proposals, so the
>>> rate of change isn't slowing although the acceptance rate is declining
>>> gradually.
>>>
>>> "Consensus" is never defined by numbers in the English language, and
>>> it does not mean "unanimity".  In PEP 1, it means that some people
>>> agree, most people don't disagree, and even if a senior person
>>> disagrees, they're willing to go along with the "sense of the
>>> community".  As that adjective "senior" implies, some people count
>>> more to the consensus than others.  Usually when I write "senior" I'm
>>> referring to core developers (committers), but here there
>>> people who are "senior" enough despite not having commit bits.[1]
>>>
>>> "The community" is not well defined, and it can't be, short of a
>>> doctoral dissertation in anthropology.  The relevant channels are
>>> open-participation, some people speak for themselves, some people are
>>> "official" representatives of important constituencies such as the
>>> leaders of large independent projects or alternative implementations,
>>> and some people have acquired sufficient reputation to be considered
>>> representative of a group of people (especially when other members of
>>> the group rarely participate in the dev lists but for some reason are
>>> considered important to the community -- I'm thinking in particular of
>>> sysadmins and devops, and the problems we can cause them by messing
>>> with packaging and installation).
>>>
>>> References to the BDFL are, of course, in limbo.  AFAIK we don't have
>>> one at the moment.  Until we do, any PEPs will presumably be accepted
>>> either by a self-nominated BDFL-Delegate acceptable to the core devs,
>>> or by an ad hoc committee of interested core devs, and that part of
>>> PEP 1 can't be usefully updated yet.  This is not a weakness of the
>>> Python project, IMO.  Rather, the fact that, despite a sort of
>>> constitutional crisis, the whole process is continuing pretty much as
>>> usual shows its strength.
>>>
>>> This is possible because the BDFL is not, and has not been for many
>>> years, a "hands-on" manager.  It's true that where a proposal affects
>>> his own "development *in* Python", he's likely to work closely with a
>>> proponent, off- and on-list, or even *be* the proponent.  Of course
>>> such proposals are more likely to be approved, and a few community
>>> members have pushed back on that because it appears undemocratic.  But
>>> the general reaction is "maybe 'Although that way may not be obvious
>>> at first unless you're Dutch' applies to me in such cases!"  For most
>>> proposals, he's "just" a very senior developer whose comments are
>>> important because he's a great developer, but he is easily swayed by
>>> the sense of the community.  Bottom line: except in the rare case
>>> where your proposal directly affects the BDFL's own coding, the BDFL's
>>> now-traditional role is to declare that consensus has been achieved,
>>> postpone the PEP because it's clear that consensus is not forming, or
>>> in rare cases, make a choice despite the lack of consensus.
>>>
>>> But none of this is really of importance to a PEP proponent
>>> ("champion" in the terminology of PEP 1).  PEP 1 is quite specific
>>> about the required components of the document, and many points of
>>> formatting and style.  Accept the uncertainty, and do what you need to
>>> do to meet those requirements, that's all there is to it.  If the
>>> community wants more, or wants changes, it will tell you, either as a
>>> demand about style or missing content from an editor or as a technical
>>> comment on the list.  Whether you accept those technical comments is
>>> up to you, but your star will rise far more rapidly if you are very
>>> sensitive to claims that "this change to the PEP will a big
>>> improvement for some significant consituency in the community".  If
>>> you want advice on whether the chance of acceptance is high enough to
>>> be worth putting in more work, ask the BDFL-Delegate (or the BDFL if
>>> she/he has "claimed" the PEP) where the proposal has an official
>>> adjudicator, and if not, a senior core developer.
>>>
>>> If one doesn't know who the senior developers are yet, she should think
>>> twice about whether she's ready to PEP anything.  That's not a litmus
>>> test; some PEPs have eventually succeeded though the proponent was new
>>> to the project development process.[2]  But it's a lot less painful if
>>> you can tell who's likely to be able to sway the whole project one way
>>> or the other.  And as a matter of improving your proposal, who surely
>>> does know more about what your proposal implies for the implementation
>>> than you do, so you should strongly consider whether *you* are the one
>>> who's missing something when you disagree with them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Footnotes:
>>> [1]  They are familiar to some of the core developers as drivers of
>>> important projects developing *in* Python.
>>>
>>> [2]  The ones I can think of involve the same kind of person as
>>> footnote 1, and a co-proponent who was a core developer.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20180922/2f1854a9/attachment-0001.html>