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

Merged

Conversation

CAM-Gerlach
Copy link
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 .

pep-0001.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@AA-Turner AA-Turner left a comment

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

pep-0001.txt Outdated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
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
Member Author

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
Member Author

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
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.

pep-0001.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pep-0001.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@CAM-Gerlach CAM-Gerlach marked this pull request as draft January 25, 2022 23:00
@CAM-Gerlach CAM-Gerlach force-pushed the pep-1-clarify-delegate-process branch from 359fca9 to 318a336 Compare January 25, 2022 23:06
@CAM-Gerlach CAM-Gerlach marked this pull request as ready for review January 25, 2022 23:08
Copy link
Member

@AA-Turner AA-Turner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Substantive changes look good

pep-0001.txt Show resolved Hide resolved
@CAM-Gerlach
Copy link
Member Author

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
Member

Nope, go ahead and merge it!

@JelleZijlstra JelleZijlstra merged commit 920f92f into python:main Feb 1, 2022
@CAM-Gerlach
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks @brettcannon !

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants