I think we can use a category dedicated to discussions of ideas and possible implementations of new third-party Python libraries.
Currently we have the Ideas category but it is meant for discussions of changes to Python itself, and oftentimes when a topic gets feedbacks like “this feature should be made into a third-party library first/instead” the thread turns into a discussion of a new third-party library, which is really off-topic for the category.
And then there’s the Help category, but it seems to be too noisy for those (such as myself) more interested in subscribing to (with a higher level of notification setting) discussions of new ideas.
Postings to this new category should be about an idea or a partial/near-completed implementation of a new third-party library seeking feedbacks from the community.
This comes up periodically, eg Meta: Lifetime of an idea. 1, 2 & 3 and has never really gotten traction. If you create a half-way house for “ideas that aren’t good enough for the Ideas section but that you don’t want to post in the General section”, all you do is create twice as many arguments about which category something should go in.
The new category will be for ideas that do not involve making changes to Python from the get go, while the arguments we see about which category something should go in are usually from posts that are first thought to involve changes to Python. So with that guideline clearly defined I don’t see how the new category will incur many if any of such arguments.
You think there WON’T be arguments? What, you’ve never been in an internet debate before??
Seriously though - have a read of the thread I linked to, and any others on similar subjects, and you’ll see that you can’t handwave this away so easily.
I’ve read through that thread before, which is really about separating current Ideas posts, i.e. proposals to making changes to Python, based on bakedness, and the problem there is that it’s always highly subjective how baked an idea is. So we continue to have Ideas posts that range from a 1-sentence wish to a fully fleshed out proposal+reference implementation, which I now think is OK.
What I’m proposing here instead is to have a separate category for ideas not based on bakedness, but based on whether changes to Python are involved.
While there may still be arguments later in a “project incubator” thread in the reverse direction about whether it should be moved to Ideas because maybe a syntax change would better serve the purpose, at least from the get go the OP has a place to frame the idea as a third-party library.
Seems like a good idea. I think it would be helpful to clarify what kind of feedback they’d be seeking.
You mention partial / near completed. Is it a kind of code review?
I could see a lot of people using it for “I had an idea, would people use my library if I made it?” (Or even, “will someone make the library I want to use”).
Yes, that’s an essential fact to keep in mind, and that such a proposal has not gained traction is reflective of people’s justified recognition of the need to proceed with caution. Some concerns that have already been brought up multiple times within the multiple discussions about this idea are the need for clarity about the purpose of this proposed category, and related to this, whether creation of such a category might add a heavy administrative burden to this forum regarding whether discussions are being initiated in their appropriate categories, among other things.
Is there also the possibility that if a new category is created with a name such as “Project Incubator” or “Library Development”, that for some projects, it might become a busy hub of detailed discussions for bringing the project from the “dough” stage to a “fully-baked” stage? That would bring additional noise to this forum. As we know, there are other more appropriate venues for such development, but out of an abundance of caution, we should consider the many reasons to proceed with due diligence before making any substantive changes. After all, with the ongoing ferment over the CoC and related issues, this is already a stressful period for the PSF, for the administrators of this site, and for the many users who care about it, including myself.
It has not been the biggest sticking point. To clarify, the name is only one of the factors that would influence how the category gets used, which is one of the issues that matters. However, the main point of my post is to focus on the prospect that the creation of the category could introduce a significantly increased volume of traffic here that could carry a heavy administrative burden. The name could influence how much traffic is generated, and where it goes.
Due to the prospect of significantly increased traffic with its needed administrative burden, it would be best not to create the category at this time, even though the motivation for the OP’s suggesting it was for a good cause.
