Skip to content

PEP 1: Further clarify PEP-Delegate notification & acceptance process - #2273

Merged
JelleZijlstra merged 2 commits into
python:mainfrom
CAM-Gerlach:pep-1-clarify-delegate-process
Feb 1, 2022
Merged

PEP 1: Further clarify PEP-Delegate notification & acceptance process#2273
JelleZijlstra merged 2 commits into
python:mainfrom
CAM-Gerlach:pep-1-clarify-delegate-process

Conversation

@CAM-Gerlach

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Followup to #1430 and PRs #2256 and #2257 , and discussed on python/steering-council#97 , to ensure the description of how PEP delegates should notify and request approval of the Steering Council is clear and consistent, and matches actual established practice, based on the descrepencies with the current merged language identified by @AA-Turner and discussed further with @willingc .

Comment threadpep-0001.txt
Comment threadpep-0001.txt Outdated

@AA-TurnerAA-Turner left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this is helpful in making the process more explicit, and being more instructive for authors and potential sponsors.

Some suggestions (and the one when I clicked the wrong button when trying to start the review)

A

Comment threadpep-0001.txt Outdated
Comment on lines +304 to +305
The Steering Council will generally accept such self-nominations by default,
but may choose to decline them.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
The Steering Council will generally accept such self-nominations by default,
but may choose to decline them.
The Steering Council will ordinarily approve such self-nominations,
but may choose to decline them.

If "ordinarily" is too formal, "usually" also works.

"approve" makes more explicit that you must hear back in the affirmative from the Council.

A

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see what you're trying to do here, but I'm concerned it is getting a bit far away from the original intended meaning—it now implies that the SC will typically approve nominations, but no longer directly mentions the decision-making rationale of approve-by-default, the original purpose of this sentence. It is now making a statement on approval probabilty (offers will be ordinarily approved) rather than approval strategy (offers will be approved by default unless there is a significant reason not to do so), as "ordinarily" (and "usually") refers to frequency while "generally" more generically is a general hedge, while "accept [...] by default" was what "generally" was referencing, not "accept" alone.

A more conservative suggestion that keeps the original meaning but applies your "approve" change would be the following:

Suggested change
The Steering Council will generally accept such self-nominations by default,
but may choose to decline them.
The Steering Council will generally approve such self-nominations by default,
but may choose to decline them.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, @brettcannon, thoughts?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the added rationale -- the "generally" and "by default" felt odd in the same sentence, but I see they are serving different purposes.

Comment threadpep-0001.txt Outdated
Comment threadpep-0001.txt Outdated
@CAM-Gerlach
CAM-Gerlach marked this pull request as draft January 25, 2022 23:00
Co-authored-by: Adam Turner <9087854+AA-Turner@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Brett Cannon <brett@python.org>
@CAM-Gerlach
CAM-Gerlachforce-pushed the pep-1-clarify-delegate-process branch from 359fca9 to 318a336CompareJanuary 25, 2022 23:06
@CAM-Gerlach
CAM-Gerlach marked this pull request as ready for review January 25, 2022 23:08

@AA-TurnerAA-Turner left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Substantive changes look good

Comment threadpep-0001.txt
@CAM-Gerlach

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Hey @brettcannon , is there any objection to going ahead with this? Or should we ask for another formal round of SC review here?

@brettcannon

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Nope, go ahead and merge it!

@JelleZijlstra
JelleZijlstra merged commit 920f92f into python:mainFeb 1, 2022
@CAM-Gerlach

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Thanks @brettcannon !

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@CAM-Gerlach@brettcannon@AA-Turner@JelleZijlstra@the-knights-who-say-ni