I’m assuming I’ll be PEP delegate for this. Could we please ensure that any discussions on the PEP (other than purely editorial issues like typos) happen here, and not on the PR? I will not be reviewing the PR comments, and even if I did, I find it difficult to follow the discussion given that changes are getting force-pushed, meaning a lot of things are marked as “outdated”.
Also, you still don’t appear to be following the normal process. I see that @dstufft is the PEP sponsor, I suggest having a word with him to ensure that you’re following the correct process. I would have expected a draft PEP to come out of an initial discussion on Discourse, and the PEP to link to that initial discussion for background. This PEP appears to have sprung out of nowhere, with no initial discussion or even mention on Discourse. Also, you need to get the PEP committed and assigned a number before even starting to talk about submitting it for approval, and as was explained in the previous thread
I’ll add some further comments on the proposal itself in a follow-up message.
As I said, that’s not normally how the process works for packaging PEPs. There should be a discussion, and once there’s a clear consensus that the idea is good, then the PEP should be submitted. If no-one comments on the PEP, and you submit it as you propose, then I’ll probably reject it on the basis that no-one seems interested in it.
The initial thread on this PEP had no comments on the actual proposal, just on the process. This thread has so far only had your comments, and the note from @gpshead. The fact that no-one else has commented either for or against the proposal concerns me. Packaging proposals are never this quiet 