PEP: Procedure for Adding New Modules (please comment)

[David Goodger]

Martijn: Good PEP. Comments:

> The library PEP
> differs from a normal standard track PEP in that the reference
> implementation should in this case always already have been
> written before the PEP is to be reviewed; the reference
> implementation _is_ the proposed contribution.

By "to be reviewed" do you mean "to be decided upon by the Integrators"? Or
"to be released to the Python community for comment"? I hope the former.
Please clarify.

> In the case where no head maintainer can be found (possibly
> because there are no maintainers left), the integrators will issue
> a call to the community at large asking for new maintainers to
> step forward. If no one does, the integrators can decide to
> declare the contribution deprecated as described in PEP 4.

I agree with Roman that this needs some explanation. When, why, under what
conditions, would the Integrators deprecate a contribution? I think
"maintainerless" is a useful category; after all, most modules do *not*
require much if any maintenance between releases.

> Should there be a list of what criteria integrators use for
> evaluating contributions?

It would be useful. I think it would have to come from the PythonLabs crew
themselves. I think it would be useful to them as well.

> A related question is integration with the Python documentation
> process. Contributions should come with good documentation that
> can be integrated with the Standard Library documentation. Should
> we detail this more in this PEP?

Say exactly that, with a pointer to the "Documenting Python" section of the
Python reference.

-- 
David Goodger    dgoodger at bigfoot.com    Open-source projects:
 - Python Docstring Processing System: http://docstring.sf.net
 - reStructuredText: http://structuredtext.sf.net
 - The Go Tools Project: http://gotools.sf.net