A Policy for Inclusion in the Standard Library: was Modules forinclusion in standard library?

Terry Reedy tjreedy at udel.edu
Sun Jul 3 22:03:59 CEST 2005

"Colin J. Williams" <cjw at sympatico.ca> wrote in message 
news:IvUxe.1417$Ud.58683 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> Terry Reedy wrote:
>> A couple of times, Guido has given his general policy as generally 
>> useful;
>> best-of-breed, tested and accepted by the community; and backed by a
>> developer who will adapt it and its doc up to stdlib standards (if
>> necessary) and commit to maintainence for a few years.
> This is a good base.  Presumably "accepted by the community" means
> with some minimum number of ongoing users.

Yes.  Users also indicate practical (versus theoretical) usefullness and 
also test beyond what a developer might (especially documentation).

Of course, modules written by the inner core group of active developers or 
on their behalf may bypass these criteria, but the context of my answer was 
discussion of inclusion of existing modules mostly or all written by other 

Part of the maintainence requirement is a willingness to work compatibly 
with the Python release cycle.  Related to that is something I left out on 
the other side: willingness to license the module to the PSF for inclusion. 
Some people seem to assume that everyone 'of course' wants their stuff 
included and that it is just Guido blocking inclusion, but that just is not 

Terry J. Reedy

More information about the Python-list mailing list