It’s a bit hard to discuss because internal Meta stuff was shared with us. If I remember correctly, it was mostly them sharing stuff about how they use Python, us providing some advice, us asking some questions about how they do some things. Honestly, a good chunk of it was internal sharing about how big corporations solve various Python and engineering problems. No concrete action items came out of the meeting from what I remember.
This phasing is not great. I imagine that the intent is that the SC should accept the vote unless there is a reason not to, but what happens if the SC never takes official notice of the vote? In the United States, the President has 10 days other than Sundays to veto an approved bill and ‘return’ it to the originating house, or it becomes law without signature. (The exception is if Congress ‘adjourns’ before the 10 days is up, preventing a return. The meaning of ‘adjourn’ has been disputed.)
It’s ambiguous based on PEP 13 – Python Language Governance | peps.python.org as you could read it either say, “no action means no veto”, or “the SC needs to explicitly not veto it”. Someone could propose an update to PEP 13 to clarify things. But the chances of the SC being unreachable is minor and go with “silence means acceptance” seems like a potential waste of time and odd way to get around some phrasing in some notes.
Brett already addressed the question for the meetup with Meta, but for the Core Dev sprint, it was just us catching up Petr (who couldn’t be there) on things that were discussed in person (rather than on video calls), and in general reflecting on everything that was discussed. We do have an action item for finding a good mentor for mentors (and other resources for mentors), and we’ve asked Deb to contact a few people she knew about that.