python-peps/pep-0001.txt

PEP: 1
Title: PEP Purpose and Guidelines
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Barry A. Warsaw, Jeremy Hylton, David Goodger
Status: Active
Type: Informational
Content-Type: text/plain
Created: 13-Jun-2000
Post-History: 21-Mar-2001, 29-Jul-2002


What is a PEP?

    PEP stands for Python Enhancement Proposal.  A PEP is a design
    document providing information to the Python community, or
    describing a new feature for Python.  The PEP should provide a
    concise technical specification of the feature and a rationale for
    the feature.

    We intend PEPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new
    features, for collecting community input on an issue, and for
    documenting the design decisions that have gone into Python.  The
    PEP author is responsible for building consensus within the
    community and documenting dissenting opinions.

    Because the PEPs are maintained as text files under CVS control,
    their revision history is the historical record of the feature
    proposal[1].


Kinds of PEPs

    There are two kinds of PEPs.  A Standards Track PEP describes a
    new feature or implementation for Python.  An Informational PEP
    describes a Python design issue, or provides general guidelines or
    information to the Python community, but does not propose a new
    feature.  Informational PEPs do not necessarily represent a Python
    community consensus or recommendation, so users and implementors
    are free to ignore Informational PEPs or follow their advice.


PEP Work Flow

    The PEP editors assign PEP numbers and change their status.  The
    current PEP editors are David Goodger and Barry Warsaw.  Please
    send all PEP-related email to <peps@python.org>.

    The PEP process begins with a new idea for Python.  It is highly
    recommended that a single PEP contain a single key proposal or new
    idea.  The more focussed the PEP, the more successfully it tends
    to be.  The PEP editor reserves the right to reject PEP proposals
    if they appear too unfocussed or too broad.  If in doubt, split
    your PEP into several well-focussed ones.

    Each PEP must have a champion -- someone who writes the PEP using
    the style and format described below, shepherds the discussions in
    the appropriate forums, and attempts to build community consensus
    around the idea.  The PEP champion (a.k.a. Author) should first
    attempt to ascertain whether the idea is PEP-able.  Small
    enhancements or patches often don't need a PEP and can be injected
    into the Python development work flow with a patch submission to
    the SourceForge patch manager[2] or feature request tracker[3].

    The PEP champion then emails the PEP editor <peps@python.org> with
    a proposed title and a rough, but fleshed out, draft of the PEP.
    This draft must be written in PEP style as described below.

    If the PEP editor approves, he will assign the PEP a number, label
    it as Standards Track or Informational, give it status "Draft",
    and create and check-in the initial draft of the PEP.  The PEP
    editor will not unreasonably deny a PEP.  Reasons for denying PEP
    status include duplication of effort, being technically unsound,
    not providing proper motivation or addressing backwards
    compatibility, or not in keeping with the Python philosophy.  The
    BDFL (Benevolent Dictator for Life, Guido van Rossum) can be
    consulted during the approval phase, and is the final arbitrator
    of the draft's PEP-ability.

    If a pre-PEP is rejected, the author may elect to take the pre-PEP
    to the comp.lang.python newsgroup (a.k.a. python-list@python.org
    mailing list) to help flesh it out, gain feedback and consensus
    from the community at large, and improve the PEP for
    re-submission.

    The author of the PEP is then responsible for posting the PEP to
    the community forums, and marshaling community support for it.  As
    updates are necessary, the PEP author can check in new versions if
    they have CVS commit permissions, or can email new PEP versions to
    the PEP editor for committing.

    Standards Track PEPs consists of two parts, a design document and
    a reference implementation.  The PEP should be reviewed and
    accepted before a reference implementation is begun, unless a
    reference implementation will aid people in studying the PEP.
    Standards Track PEPs must include an implementation - in the form
    of code, patch, or URL to same - before it can be considered
    Final.

    PEP authors are responsible for collecting community feedback on a
    PEP before submitting it for review.  A PEP that has not been
    discussed on python-list@python.org and/or python-dev@python.org
    will not be accepted.  However, wherever possible, long open-ended
    discussions on public mailing lists should be avoided.  Strategies
    to keep the discussions efficient include, setting up a separate
    SIG mailing list for the topic, having the PEP author accept
    private comments in the early design phases, etc.  PEP authors
    should use their discretion here.

    Once the authors have completed a PEP, they must inform the PEP
    editor that it is ready for review.  PEPs are reviewed by the BDFL
    and his chosen consultants, who may accept or reject a PEP or send
    it back to the author(s) for revision.  For a PEP that is
    pre-determined to be acceptable (e.g., it is an obvious win as-is
    and/or its implementation has already been checked in) the BDFL
    may also initiate a PEP review, first notifying the PEP author(s)
    and giving them a chance to make revisions.

    For a PEP to be accepted it must meet certain minimum criteria.
    It must be a clear and complete description of the proposed
    enhancement.  The enhancement must represent a net improvement.
    The proposed implementation, if applicable, must be solid and must
    not complicate the interpreter unduly.  Finally, a proposed
    enhancement must be "pythonic" in order to be accepted by the
    BDFL.  (However, "pythonic" is an imprecise term; it may be
    defined as whatever is acceptable to the BDFL.  This logic is
    intentionally circular.)  See PEP 2 [10] for standard library
    module acceptance criteria.

    Once a PEP has been accepted, the reference implementation must be
    completed.  When the reference implementation is complete and
    accepted by the BDFL, the status will be changed to "Final".

    A PEP can also be assigned status "Deferred".  The PEP author or
    editor can assign the PEP this status when no progress is being
    made on the PEP.  Once a PEP is deferred, the PEP editor can
    re-assign it to draft status.

    A PEP can also be "Rejected".  Perhaps after all is said and done
    it was not a good idea.  It is still important to have a record of
    this fact.

    PEPs can also be replaced by a different PEP, rendering the
    original obsolete.  This is intended for Informational PEPs, where
    version 2 of an API can replace version 1.

    PEP work flow is as follows:

        Draft -> Accepted -> Final -> Replaced
          ^
          +----> Rejected
          v
        Deferred

    Some Informational PEPs may also have a status of "Active" if they
    are never meant to be completed.  E.g. PEP 1.


What belongs in a successful PEP?

    Each PEP should have the following parts:

    1. Preamble -- RFC822 style headers containing meta-data about the
       PEP, including the PEP number, a short descriptive title
       (limited to a maximum of 44 characters), the names, and
       optionally the contact info for each author, etc.

    2. Abstract -- a short (~200 word) description of the technical
       issue being addressed.

    3. Copyright/public domain -- Each PEP must either be explicitly
       labelled as placed in the public domain (see this PEP as an
       example) or licensed under the Open Publication License[4].

    4. Specification -- The technical specification should describe
       the syntax and semantics of any new language feature.  The
       specification should be detailed enough to allow competing,
       interoperable implementations for any of the current Python
       platforms (CPython, JPython, Python .NET).

    5. Motivation -- The motivation is critical for PEPs that want to
       change the Python language.  It should clearly explain why the
       existing language specification is inadequate to address the
       problem that the PEP solves.  PEP submissions without
       sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.

    6. Rationale -- The rationale fleshes out the specification by
       describing what motivated the design and why particular design
       decisions were made.  It should describe alternate designs that
       were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is
       supported in other languages.

       The rationale should provide evidence of consensus within the
       community and discuss important objections or concerns raised
       during discussion.

    7. Backwards Compatibility -- All PEPs that introduce backwards
       incompatibilities must include a section describing these
       incompatibilities and their severity.  The PEP must explain how
       the author proposes to deal with these incompatibilities.  PEP
       submissions without a sufficient backwards compatibility
       treatise may be rejected outright.

    8. Reference Implementation -- The reference implementation must
       be completed before any PEP is given status "Final", but it
       need not be completed before the PEP is accepted.  It is better
       to finish the specification and rationale first and reach
       consensus on it before writing code.

       The final implementation must include test code and
       documentation appropriate for either the Python language
       reference or the standard library reference.


PEP Formats and Templates

    There are two PEP formats available to authors: plaintext and
    reStructuredText.

    Plaintext PEPs are written in plain ASCII text, contain minimal
    structural markup, and should adhere to a rigid style.  PEP 9
    contains a boilerplate template[7] you can use to get started
    writing your plaintext PEP.

    ReStructuredText PEPs allow for rich markup that is still quite
    easy to read, but results in much better-looking and more
    functional HTML.  PEP 12 contains a boilerplate template[8] for
    use with reStructuredText PEPs.

    There is a Python script that converts both styles of PEPs to HTML
    for viewing on the web[5].  Parsing and conversion of plaintext
    PEPs is self-contained within the script.  reStructuredText PEPs
    are parsed and converted by Docutils[9] code called from the
    script.


PEP Header Preamble

    Each PEP must begin with an RFC822 style header preamble.  The
    headers must appear in the following order.  Headers marked with
    "*" are optional and are described below.  All other headers are
    required.

        PEP: <pep number>
        Title: <pep title>
        Version: <cvs version string>
        Last-Modified: <cvs date string>
        Author: <list of authors' real names and optionally, email addrs>
      * Discussions-To: <email address>
        Status: <Draft | Active | Accepted | Deferred | Rejected |
                 Final | Replaced>
        Type: <Informational | Standards Track>
      * Content-Type: <text/plain | text/x-rst>
      * Requires: <pep numbers>
        Created: <date created on, in dd-mmm-yyyy format>
      * Python-Version: <version number>
        Post-History: <dates of postings to python-list and python-dev>
      * Replaces: <pep number>
      * Replaced-By: <pep number>

    The Author header lists the names, and optionally the email
    addresses of all the authors/owners of the PEP.  The format of the
    Author header value must be

        Random J. User <address@dom.ain>

    if the email address is included, and just

        Random J. User

    if the address is not given.  For historical reasons the format
    "address@dom.ain (Random J. User)" may appear in a PEP, however
    new PEPs must use the mandated format above, and it is acceptable
    to change to this format when PEPs are updated.

    If there are multiple authors, each should be on a separate line
    following RFC 2822 continuation line conventions.  Note that
    personal email addresses in PEPs will be obscured as a defense
    against spam harvesters.

    While a PEP is in private discussions (usually during the initial
    Draft phase), a Discussions-To header will indicate the mailing
    list or URL where the PEP is being discussed.  No Discussions-To
    header is necessary if the PEP is being discussed privately with
    the author, or on the python-list or python-dev email mailing
    lists.  Note that email addresses in the Discussions-To header
    will not be obscured.

    The Type header specifies the type of PEP: Informational or
    Standards Track.

    The format of a PEP is specified with a Content-Type header.  The
    acceptable values are "text/plain" for plaintext PEPs (see PEP 9
    [7]) and "text/x-rst" for reStructuredText PEPs (see PEP 12 [8]).
    Plaintext ("text/plain") is the default if no Content-Type header
    is present.

    The Created header records the date that the PEP was assigned a
    number, while Post-History is used to record the dates of when new
    versions of the PEP are posted to python-list and/or python-dev.
    Both headers should be in dd-mmm-yyyy format, e.g. 14-Aug-2001.

    Standards Track PEPs must have a Python-Version header which
    indicates the version of Python that the feature will be released
    with.  Informational PEPs do not need a Python-Version header.

    PEPs may have a Requires header, indicating the PEP numbers
    that this PEP depends on.

    PEPs may also have a Replaced-By header indicating that a PEP has
    been rendered obsolete by a later document; the value is the
    number of the PEP that replaces the current document.  The newer
    PEP must have a Replaces header containing the number of the PEP
    that it rendered obsolete.


Reporting PEP Bugs, or Submitting PEP Updates

    How you report a bug, or submit a PEP update depends on several
    factors, such as the maturity of the PEP, the preferences of the
    PEP author, and the nature of your comments.  For the early draft
    stages of the PEP, it's probably best to send your comments and
    changes directly to the PEP author.  For more mature, or finished
    PEPs you may want to submit corrections to the SourceForge bug
    manager[6] or better yet, the SourceForge patch manager[2] so that
    your changes don't get lost.  If the PEP author is a SF developer,
    assign the bug/patch to him, otherwise assign it to the PEP
    editor.

    When in doubt about where to send your changes, please check first
    with the PEP author and/or PEP editor.

    PEP authors who are also SF committers, can update the PEPs
    themselves by using "cvs commit" to commit their changes.
    Remember to also push the formatted PEP text out to the web by
    doing the following:

    % python pep2html.py -i NUM

    where NUM is the number of the PEP you want to push out.  See

    % python pep2html.py --help

    for details.


Transferring PEP Ownership

    It occasionally becomes necessary to transfer ownership of PEPs to
    a new champion.  In general, we'd like to retain the original
    author as a co-author of the transferred PEP, but that's really up
    to the original author.  A good reason to transfer ownership is
    because the original author no longer has the time or interest in
    updating it or following through with the PEP process, or has
    fallen off the face of the 'net (i.e. is unreachable or not
    responding to email).  A bad reason to transfer ownership is
    because you don't agree with the direction of the PEP.  We try to
    build consensus around a PEP, but if that's not possible, you can
    always submit a competing PEP.

    If you are interested in assuming ownership of a PEP, send a
    message asking to take over, addressed to both the original author
    and the PEP editor <peps@python.org>.  If the original author
    doesn't respond to email in a timely manner, the PEP editor will
    make a unilateral decision (it's not like such decisions can't be
    reversed :).


References and Footnotes

    [1] This historical record is available by the normal CVS commands
    for retrieving older revisions.  For those without direct access
    to the CVS tree, you can browse the current and past PEP revisions
    via the SourceForge web site at

    http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/python/nondist/peps/?cvsroot=python

    [2] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=5470&atid=305470

    [3] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=355470&group_id=5470&func=browse

    [4] http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/

    [5] The script referred to here is pep2html.py, which lives in
        the same directory in the CVS tree as the PEPs themselves.
        Try "pep2html.py --help" for details.

        The URL for viewing PEPs on the web is
        http://www.python.org/peps/

    [6] http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=5470&atid=305470

    [7] PEP 9, Sample Plaintext PEP Template, Warsaw
        http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0009.html

    [8] PEP 12, Sample reStructuredText PEP Template, Goodger, Warsaw
        http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0012.html

    [9] http://docutils.sourceforge.net/

    [10] PEP 2, Procedure for Adding New Modules, Faassen
         http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0002.html


Copyright

    This document has been placed in the public domain.



Local Variables:
mode: indented-text
indent-tabs-mode: nil
sentence-end-double-space: t
fill-column: 70
End: