PEP 676: PEP Infrastructure Process

[barry (Barry Warsaw)]

@CAM-Gerlach

Now that final PEP resolution appears imminent, this is definitely the biggest open question for me that I’m looking for at least a ballpark estimate on for planning purposes, and has significant implications both for my/our onging and future linting, infra and PEP 1/12 PRs, as well as my own work to complete PEP 639.

Okay cool. Ee is pinged on this thread, and I suggest reaching out to infrastructure@ now to coordinate. My only mild concern was if something in the Specification section needed to change, but we’ll just treat that as we would implementation for a Standards Track PEP (i.e. it doesn’t necessarily need to be complete before the PEP is approved).

@CAM-Gerlach

we’re both members of the Docs Team that supports the WG, attend the meetings and are active on the Discord, and IIRC I brought it up at the WG meeting, and no one raised any concerns.

@CAM-Gerlach

toward moving the PEPs further away from being living documentation and more specifically focusing on being change proposals (though this strategic goal hasn’t been officially formalized yet).

That was always my position when we designed the PEP process originally, so I’m +1 on formalizing that.

@CAM-Gerlach

This proposal should be fairly transparent to the wider Python community

Sure, but from a user perspective, I think it’s worth celebrating all this great work, so I would still recommend sending announcements as per above.

@encukou

The next Docs WG meeting is planned for Monday. I’ve added a note to the agenda. But IMO it shouldn’t block anything.

Agreed.