(Discussion that had started in private email, transferring to Discourse as it’s probably of general interest)
Oh, this discussion is becoming interesting. I would prefer to have it
in public. Would you mind to create a topic on Discourse?
Le ven. 16 nov. 2018 à 18:50, Paul Moore <email@example.com> a écrit :
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 at 16:59, Victor Stinner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Le ven. 16 nov. 2018 à 16:17, Paul Moore <email@example.com> a écrit :
> > > Yes, I read that bit after my posting. I’m not sure I agree - after
> > > all, this is supposed to be about governance specifically, and I’m not
> > > keen on having to agree to (for example) your proposal on how core
> > > developers are promoted (which I disagree with - I find it too
> > > bureaucratic and prescriptive) if I want to say that I prefer a
> > > “steering committee” model over a “new BDFL” model (I’m not sure if I
> > > do want to state that preference yet, but you understand my point).
> > Aha, why do you think that my process to promote a core developer is
> > too bureaucratic? Is it so different from the current process?
> I don’t really want to get into too much detail here because I
> haven’t really thought my position through (that’s also why I’m
> bothered about this being part of the governance decision). But
> basically the thing that bothers me is that having precise “this many
> votes equals yes, this many equals no” rules feels to me like it risks
> edge cases like someone getting promoted based on one more than the
> minimum vote, or people getting promoted with not many people having
> voted. The current process is much more informal, and is based on
> broad consensus (a deliberately imprecise measure which basically
> means “is it obvious that the current core devs approve?”) When I was
> invited to be a core dev, I’d have been a bit bothered if I found out
> once I’d joined that I had only been voted in by a small margin.
> Also, I feel that formal votes for new core devs puts more pressure on
> existing devs to “make the right decision” (specifically, I would
> feel under pressure), which in turn might lead to people being put off
> voting. Whereas an informal comment on a discussion along the lines of
> “I’ve always found such-and-such to have good judgement and the work
> I’ve seen of theirs seems of high quality, so I’m in favour” seems
> much easier to give - and it also provides better feedback to the new
> core dev when they get accepted and go looking at the discussion after
> the fact (I don’t know if others do that, but I did, and it was quite
> pleasant reading the nice comments, much better than seeing a sterile
> tally of +1/-1 votes).
> Well, that’s getting into more detail than I intended to, sorry
> > We are already voting on the python-committers mailing list with +1
> > and -1 votes. But I dislike that each -1 is a veto. In practice, it
> > wasn’t the case. See this discussion:
> > Private ballot for voting on promoting a contributor as a core developer?
> Well, that’s not what the current process feels like to me. For me,
> it’s always felt more like a general discussion resulting in consensus
> (or not - but -1 votes don’t “feel like” vetos to me, just indications
> that we haven’t got consensus yet). But maybe my memory is missing
> some examples.
> By the way, I’m a very strong -1 on private votes to accept new core
> devs. If we’re going to work with the new dev, we should be open with
> them about our views. I’m not going to read that whole thread about
> core the dev process, and I certainly don’t want to jump into it 4
> days after discussion has died down, but if we’re going to have
> private ballots about new devs (as opposed to open discussion on a
> forum that the proposed candidate will be able to see if they get
> accepted) then I probably won’t vote. Picking up on another aspect
> of your governance proposal which, while not something I disagree
> with, is nevertheless out of scope of “governance”, we expect core
> devs to be exemplary in terms of the CoC. Surely that means we can
> expect people to be able to discuss whether they think an individual
> is ready to be a core dev in a considerate and sympathetic manner,
> that they would be happy to post publicly? Negative comments that
> you’re not willing to make in public don’t exactly sound like
> “exemplary behaviour”…
> > Core developers have specific permissions, like voting on a PEP and
> > elect Steering Committee members. IMHO it’s important to explain the
> > full process: contributor => core dev, core dev => committee.
> Explain, maybe. Propose changes to, not so much. The proposal should
> be restricted to only proposing changes needed to replace Guido.
> Otherwise it’s hard to judge this proposal on an even basis against
> others that don’t propose changes that are outside that limited
> But the proposal is what it is - we’re now in the discussion phase and
> I have to judge what’s there, not what I’d like to be there. That’s
> why I originally made my comment on the “how do we feel about the
> proposals now they have been submitted” thread.
> > I am working on the process to promote core developers for 2 years. I
> > wrote a draft PEP, but I never brave enough to propose it:
> > https://github.com/vstinner/misc/blob/master/cpython/pep-core_dev_process.rst
> I dislike that process, sorry. Not least because I would not be a core
> developer if I’d had to follow it. IMO, there are many routes to
> becoming a core developer, and insisting that one route is the only
> valid one denies people who follow a different path.
> It should be noted here that I view “being a core Python developer” as
> much more than getting the commit bit (I can commit, but very rarely
> do). It’s about involvement in the community, having gained respect
> and possibly even authority. All sorts of things that result in
> comments like “I didn’t know they weren’t already a core dev” when
> people get proposed. And being able to say “I am a core Python
> developer” is a privilege, and something to be proud of, definitely
> not just an additional burden of responsibilities and commitments.
> > Even if Guido asked me two or three times to propose it
> Well, that Guido guy, what does he know?
> I’m a little sad this discussion is private - it really ought to be
> happening in public (or not at all, I guess). That’s a consequence of
> being able to post something then delete it on Discourse, I guess -
> the connection to the original thread is lost. I don’t know how we’d
> even graft this back onto the Discourse thread now, or even if it
> makes sense to. The discussion has ranged pretty widely and I feel
> that people might expect it to be split into multiple topics (which
> I’m not particularly inclined to try to do, as in my head it’s all
> linked together under a common theme). I’ll probably add a new comment
> there summarising my view a bit better than my original post did.