Straw poll: Which governance proposals do you like best?

[barry (Barry Warsaw)]

@njs

When there’s a dispute that comes up, it seems important to be able to ask “does the GUIDO have the authority to resolve this dispute?” and get “yes” or “no” as the answer. If the answer is “maybe, no-one knows”, then that doesn’t simplify anything, it just creates a whole new category of disputes, about whether the GUIDO’s attempts to resolve things are binding or not.

That’s not what I’m saying. There’s always going to be ambiguity in any constitution, and your questions came across to me as more hypothetical than must-answer. What I don’t want to do is put a big list of questions in PEP 8010 with specific answers, because that constrains the PEP too much.

But okay, I’m game to answer your questions through my interpretation of the PEP! (Assuming I can find your questions in Discourse’s unhelpful linear conversation mode.)

@njs

• Pronounce on PEPs (YES)
• Decide whether a particular decision requires a PEP (YES)
• Decide whether or not an alternative implementation is really Python (NOT NECESSARILY - this seems like more of a legal question than a technical one, thus the PSF would certainly be involved IMHO)
• Add people to the core team, remove people from the core team, change the process for promoting people (YES - assuming consensus cannot be reached)
• Make decisions about special cases, like giving someone bpo permissions without commit permissions, or giving commit permissions but only for the docs (YES - assuming consensus cannot be reached, or subsequent policies do not cover this case)
• Change the rules for the governance itself, or for any of the above (NO)