-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
PEP-Delegate notification for PEP 676 #97
Comments
To note, python/peps#2257 (comment) provides further clarification of the key point of confusion, summarizes the history/background, and suggests a couple further wording tweaks that would clarity it. TL;DR: The confusion seems to be between the SC's decision making for approval being approve-by-default, and the notification of the result being an explicit statement of SC approval on this issue, to be consistent with the process for other other tickets here (including past PEP-Delegate nominations I could find, e.g. #28 , on which the existing lack of clarity over this same point led to the PRs that prompted this latest conundrum), and to avoid any confusion over the notification method, waiting period and what consistences the SC "not declining to approve" a nomination (none of which is currently specified in the PEP, and would be a more substantive change to add). |
Thanks! I added it to the SC agenda. |
To confirm, I self-nominate to be PEP Delegate for this PEP. |
The SC is happy with Barry as PEP Delegate. |
That leaves the question of PEP 1 being ambiguous, though. I didn't add that part -- apologies. (FWIW, I don't think there's much of a practical difference between the two options. It's fine for the aspiring delegate to start their work before they're confirmed, and before they make a pronouncement they should be reasonably sure they won't get vetoed.) |
Thanks, @encukou !
Actually, if I understand you correctly, that's actually another good point—that the SC can veto a PEP-Delegate's decision on a PEP; at least as currently written in PEP 1, the formally-specified process for this is by removing the PEP-Delegate, which is stated to revert any decision they have made. What the present discussion seems to more be about, though, is clarifying the process for notifying and seeking the Council's acceptance (or equivalently, non-declining) of a PEP-Delegate offer to begin with, such that it can be formally documented in the PEP header; the current underspecified approach seems to be the source of the confusion here. For SC consideration, the proposed revised language for the sentence in paragraph 4, based on consultation with @willingc and @AA-Turner , and the current de-facto process as has been practiced on recent PEPs I'm aware of, is:
and tweaking the first sentence of paragraph 7 to read,
I would also link [Steering Council] to this issue tracker in paragraph 6 (on notifying the SC and others). |
I'd concur with Cam, the issue seems to be on power versus the (default) exercise of power. The Council could take a view to require all Delegates to be explicitly approved (more work, greater oversight) or vice versa, with the opposite attributes. Regardless, above my pay grade, but thanks all for looking into it. And thanks for approving Barry as Delegate so quickly! I shall update the PEP in due course. A |
In practice, there isn't any practical difference in terms of who gets approved, what changes is just clarifying the process by which the Steering Council is notified and given and opportunity to decline/approve, as it has been phrased by the SC in practice on past issues like this, and ensuring the wording in the PEP matches the current process in practice (opening a SC issue here and the SC responding in the negative or the affirmative, however specifically it is phrased). |
That's the way it has always been. Typically it's the SC asking someone to be the delegate, not someone volunteering. And we have even turned down volunteers before. |
Thanks for clarifying. Yeah, the way I saw the above suggested changes is just making the wording clear, specific and consistent with the actual process as it is done in practice for volunteers (open a SC ticket and wait for SC 👍 or 👎). I opened PR python/peps#2273 to that effect and requested your review on it so we can move forward with something. Thanks! |
The PR was merged, so I'll close this issue as well. |
Per PEP 1, I'm notifying the SC of @warsaw's nomination as PEP Delegate for PEP 676.
He is a long serving PEP editor and core developer, as well as a former SC member, so I am very happy to have him serve as delegate.
(Note: a recent update to PEP 1 has left it unclear as to if this request is for explicit approval or simply a notification to enable the chance to veto, see python/peps#2257 (comment) for a longer explanation).
A
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: