PEP scepticism

[Martijn Faassen]

Tim Peters <tim.one at home.com> wrote:
> [Martijn Faassen]
>> ...
>> And as I suggested in my post, if standard library development is indeed
>> not part of the primary sets of interests of the core developers,

> I'm not sure Guido expressed himself clearly enough there.  All the core
> developers have done major work on the libraries, so that's not a hangup.

I figured it was like this. I realize of course that the library has
in a large part been written by the core developers.

> What is a hangup is that people also want stuff the current group of core
> developers has no competence (and/or sometimes interest) to write.  Like SSL
> support on Windows, or IPv6 support, etc.  Expert-level work in a field
> requires experts in that field to contribute.

This is understood.

> We also need a plan to keep
> their stuff running after they go away again, the lack of which is one
> strong reason Guido resists adding stuff to the library.

Agreed. And some people who make it their central business to keep the stuff
running (either by fixing it themselves or by harassing experts in the
community :) may be a good idea there. Of course it may not. 
 
>> perhaps it would be good to set up an semi-formal group that *does*
>> treat this as their 'core business' (manage core library development
>> and perhaps even independent releases) A library-SIG, perhaps?

> Start by adding some meat to PEP 2.

I'll study PEP 2. :) Oh, done. Yes, this *really* needs more meat. 
 
>> In general, the idea is that perhaps we don't have hundreds of Andrew
>> Kuchlings (to quote Tim) is because there is no place or group to
>> attract them. A bit of a chicken and egg problem, of course. :)

> Part of what makes Andrew Andrew is that he didn't wait for anyone to take
> him by the hand and tell him what to do.  He saw things that needed to be
> done, and *did* them, fighting when necessary to get his work out into the
> world.  That's how things get accomplished -- committees and study groups
> and Usenet debates don't; even the Python SIGs have, overall, a poor track
> record on delivering results (with notable exceptions).  You don't need a
> group; you need someone able to work and motivated enough to do it without
> being pushed.

I realize this, and this is a good point. Of course this is idle
discussion. :)

I may still signal a need for such people before said people get
up and do all the work. :) If this need is very well recognized by the
developers and the community, they may be more welcoming to people
who stand up and the word..

> you-do-it-for-the-glory-or-not-at-all-ly y'rs  - tim

Exactly! Right now there is not the feeling that there is much _glory_ in this
activity. Which is why I've been talking about a special 'status' for it.
It doesn't really matter how this is accomplished, but there should be
a feeling in the community that work on the standard library is wonderful,
doable (your patches have a reasonable chance at being studied and accepted) 
and desirable.

I'll try to do some work on PEP 2.

Regards,

Martijn
-- 
History of the 20th Century: WW1, WW2, WW3?
No, WWW -- Could we be going in the right direction?