Does the Nov 16 - Nov 30 voting timeframe still work?

Discourse polls appear to support only Plurality (pick one) and Approval (pick as many as you like) directly, and Approval is more revealing. So list the PEP numbers and ask people to check off all the ones they approve of.

It already overlaps with Thanksgiving in the US. I don’t see any point in people arguing about it, so just vote in the poll I already created for the voting window:

I meant I don’t know what to put in your poll :stuck_out_tongue:

Haha! I missed that :laughing:.

But It’s not meant to be an intellectual puzzle: which date ranges are you personally OK with? Check all that apply. It’s not asking what you believe other people “should” also be OK with - just what works (or doesn’t) for you.

Shouldn’t the question be: are all the relevant PEPs ready to be voted on ?

If you can answer yes to that question, the next question is: “How long do people need to review all of them, ask questions, etc. ?” and then you pick a week for voting after this period has ended.

I can’t answer the first question, but since all PEPs are fairly complex esp. when it comes to details, I’d say we need to give people at least two weeks for reviews and questions.


There’s a few things I need to respond to and a general comment so I’ll use fancy headers to signify what I’m focusing on.

Time for reviews and questions

Right. PEPs published early gave people more than a month for reviews and questions. This happened amply on Discourse and the mailing list already. Interested parties could always come in and ask questions. Others decided not to engage and that is their choice.

Pushing the vote later

Exactly right: pushing it by even “one week” will likely mean we are pushing the vote to 2019.

Inability to change your vote: WHAT?

Wait, what? Why? I don’t see this decided anywhere. The original PEP 8001 specified explicitly that people are free to change their mind for the period of the vote. To change this we would need to have an explicit discussion about why this is an issue, there was none.

If you mean “ Allow voters to write in new choices.” then I understood this as the inability for people to add new options to the poll. This is of course uncontroversial.

General comment: I am troubled by the ensuing chaos.

The first version of PEP 8001 was published on October 15th. It stated, among other details, a date for the vote far enough in advance. In fact, this date was based directly on @Mariatta’s original proposal from August 1. There were no suggestions for any other dates and any concern voiced about inadequate time for reviews and questions.

The first batch of governance PEP placeholders was posted to the repository in late August by @barry. Before anyone started work on those, we spent significant time researching how third-party projects are governed and wrote down summaries in PEP 8002.

Then came the core sprint in Redmond when the initial crop of PEPs got volunteers to actually author it. @steve.dower quickly penned his own new proposal, followed by @jackjansen who was not at the sprint. @vstinner was not happy with any existing proposal and decided to post a late addition on October 6th. Mariatta’s original timeline for PEP authorship and review was well known and understood, as proven by Victor’s plea to wait for his PEP since there was a non-disputed deadline for original PEP submissions of October 1st that was later extended by a week.

That means PEPs 8010 - 8015 were evolving for a good 6 weeks with ample time for reviews and discussion. In this setup, PEP 8016 (announced two weeks ago!) should not have even been considered but I’ve stayed quiet about this because I didn’t want to hinder what seemed like a healthy discussion. But in exchange I expected the authors of PEP 8016 to understand that they should not hold everybody else hostage due to their late submission.

I hope the ordeal with “putting the PEP 8001 back into draft status” to switch from IRV to Condorcet (and from GitHub votes to CIVS) will work out. Based on Tim’s comments above, looks like provided the voters are of light build and relatively sedentary we might even end up with a Condorcet winner the first time round! :wink:

My biggest hope though is that we won’t see any more last minute disruptions.

No, that’s not what I mean :-). I mean that PEP 8001, the one that’s currently in the PEP’s repo, has been revised to make it so that you cannot change your mind after you cast your vote. (Or, well, you can change your mind, but if you do then sucks to be you, because you can’t change your vote.) You probably want to read this thread:

So uh, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but putting that fact together with what you wrote, it sounds like you’re saying that PEP 8001 requires further discussion?

“Non-disputed” feels a bit revisionist? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

I mean, I know it’s no-one’s favorite outcome, but if the end result of all this is that the vote schedule slips once and things are resolved in January, then that’s not the end of the world? Even if we pick one of the proposals that requires a followup vote and that takes a month, then we’ll still be done by the end of Februrary, well ahead of Guido’s deadline of PyCon (which is May 1-9). And everyone who’s been pushing for voting ASAP will still get to feel satisfied that their work kept things moving well enough to keep us down to a single schedule slip :-).

No, I put the rationale behind not being able to change your vote later explicitly in the PEP body, as well as the warning suggested by for people to hold off with casting ballots until they are absolutely certain. Also added your bunch as co-authors which was overdue, sorry!

I do think that both Condorcet (through its unclear “is there even a winner?” nature that explored above) and CIVS (through the inability to change your mind) make this election rather fragile. This increases the likelihood we’ll have to do this all over again. The original PEP’s goal was to avoid that and now that’s out of the window. I’m not going to veto anything but I’m worried.

How dare you spoil my argument with FACTS!

Sorry if I sounded dismissive, the way the discussion went then made me misremember those.

Maybe I’m nit picking here but Guido’s deadline was “well before PyCon”.

Do PEP authors need more time?

After thinking about this the entire day, I have to agree with @malemburg that the main audience to ask whether Nov 16 - Nov 30 is realistic is the PEP 801x authors. I created a poll for them to specify if they are on track: PEP 801x authors, are you on track for the vote between Nov 16 - Nov 30?

I also e-mailed all personally in case they are in the Discourse-sceptic crowd.

I also think that we should keep the original date of Nov 16.

In addition to what Lukasz had said, the private repo where we collect email address for voting clearly states
“” the General election date as Nov 16:

Missing emails for Governance Election on 2018-11-16 #1

I do admit some fault in this. I intended to send out reminders two weeks ahead of voting and one week ahead of voting, but I got too occupied with other things… I’m sorry.

But still, the Nov 16 date is not new news, it’s been brought up since August, and during the sprint meeting, (you were there too @njs) we talked about the date and everyone in the room heard and agreed to it.

Maybe I’m nit picking here but Guido’s deadline was “well before PyCon”.

I also understood it as “well before PyCon” as in long long time before PyCon (May 1, 2019)


FYI I forked this date conversation to its own topic as the other topic was already quite long and this seemed like a rather focused topic.

1 Like

I think the status of PEP 8001 doesn’t signal anything as there’s no clear consensus on who gets to make the call it’s finished anyway (since we have no consensus on anything beyond we need a governance model someday :wink:) . I’ve been going on the assumption that we would mark it final on Nov 15 when the vote starts since we are done talking about voting at that point. :smile:

1 Like

Do we have a definitive list of eligible voters? If not, then opening the voting in 2 days seems ambitious.

My understanding is this is the voters list. Core devs have been asked to provide their email address there. If they’re still not in the list, perhaps they just don’t intend to vote?

Thanks. I just want to make sure that we’ve used every means at our disposal (e.g python-committers, python-dev, etc.) to reach potential eligible voters. It would be really bad if some core dev missed an announcement until it was too late.

That list looks incomplete. I’ve seen another list where warsaw is on it, but it’s not on that list. Are there more than one list floating around?

Actually, the voting list is this file. As you can see, several active developers don’t have e-mails in this file (e.g. vadmium, rhettinger, markshannon…).

They were asked to provide their email address here, but have not responded yet.

IMHO, we need to reach out to them again, explicitly, with a deadline.

Ok I guess the list in the file titled 2018-11-16-governance-election.csv is the actual voters list :slight_smile:
Some emails still missing. If we weren’t able to contact them via GitHub what else do we need to do?

There has been email sent to python-committers as well

:white_check_mark: done