PEP 8013: Completed first draft (#778)

pep-8013.rst

@@ -38,7 +38,8 @@ Some suggestions in this document are currently weak suggestions, and
 are open to change during the discussion period. These include:
 
 * We can change the name of the group. "Council of Auditors" is the
-  suggested alternative.
+  suggested alternative, though "Python Inquisition" is very tempting
+  if we believe we can be clear about the source of the name [1]_
 
 * We can change voting procedures, timelines, and tie-breakage rules
 
@@ -75,11 +76,13 @@ Key people and their functions
 
 The Group of Unbiased Independent Directors of Order (GUIDO) is a
 council of varying size, typically two to four people, who are elected
-for the duration of a Python release. GUIDO has responsibility for
-reviewing controversial decisions in the form of PEPs written by
-members of the core development team.
+for the duration of a Python release. One member of GUIDO is
+considered the President, who has some minor points of authority over
+the other members.
 
-GUIDO may choose to accept a PEP exactly as presented, or may request
+GUIDO has responsibility for reviewing controversial decisions in the
+form of PEPs written by members of the core development team. GUIDO
+may choose to accept a PEP exactly as presented, or may request
 clarification or changes. These changes may be of any form and for any
 reason. This flexibility is intentional, and allows the process to
 change over time as different members are elected to GUIDO. See the
@@ -90,24 +93,35 @@ GUIDO only pronounces on PEPs submitted to python-committers. There is
 no expectation that GUIDO follows or participates on any other mailing
 lists.
 
-The Release Manager (RM) is also permitted the same ability to accept
-or request changes on any PEPs that specify the release they are
-responsible for. After feature freeze, the RM retains this
-responsibility for their release, while GUIDO rotates and begins to
-focus on the subsequent release. This is no different from the current
-process. The process for selection of a RM is not changed in this
-proposal.
+GUIDO may not delegate authority to individuals who have not been
+elected by the core developer team. (One relevant case here is that
+this changes the implementation of the existing BDFL-Delegate system,
+though without necessarily changing the spirit of that system. See the
+later sections for more discussion on this point.)
+
+The Release Manager (RM) is also permitted the same ability to request
+changes on any PEPs that specify the release they are responsible for.
+After feature freeze, the RM retains this responsibility for their
+release, while GUIDO rotates and begins to focus on the subsequent
+release. This is no different from the current process. The process
+for selection of a RM is not changed in this proposal.
 
 Core developers are responsible for electing members of GUIDO, and
-have the ability to call a "vote of no confidence" in members of
-GUIDO. The details of these votes are discussed below.
+have the ability to call a "vote of no confidence" against a member of
+GUIDO. The details of these votes are discussed in a later section.
+
+Where discussions between core developers and members of GUIDO appear
+to be ongoing but unfruitful, the President may step in to overrule
+either party. Where the discussion involves the President, it should
+be handled using a vote of no confidence.
 
 Members of GUIDO may choose to resign at any point. If at least two
 members of GUIDO remain, they may request a new election to refill the
 group. If only one member remains, the election is triggered
-automatically.
+automatically. (The scenario when the President resigns is described
+in a later section.)
 
-The intended balance of power is that the core developers elect
+The intended balance of power is that the core developers will elect
 members of GUIDO who reflect the direction and have the trust of the
 development team, and also have the ability to remove members who do
 not honour commitments made prior to election.
@@ -117,31 +131,35 @@ Regular decision process
 
 Regular decisions continue to be made as at present.
 
-For the sake of clarity, decisions requiring a PEP are always treated
-as controversial.
+For the sake of clarity, controversial decisions require a PEP, and
+any decisions requiring a PEP are considered as controversial.
 
 GUIDO may be asked to advise on whether a decision would be better
-made using the controversial decision process, but the core
-development team is not bound by such advice.
+made using the controversial decision process, or individual members
+of GUIDO may volunteer such a suggestion, but the core development
+team is not bound by this advice.
 
 Controversial decision process
 ------------------------------
 
 Controversial decisions are always written up as PEPs, following the
 existing process. The approver (formerly "BDFL-Delegate") is always
-GUIDO.
+GUIDO, and can no longer be delegated. Note that this does not
+prevent GUIDO from deciding to nominate a core developer to assess the
+proposal and provide GUIDO with a recommendation, which is essentially
+the same as the current delegation process.
 
 GUIDO will pronounce on PEPs submitted to python-committers with a
-request for pronouncement. Any member of GUIDO may request changes to
-a PEP for any reason, provided they include some indication of what
-additional work is required to meet their expectations. See later
-sections for examples of expected reasons.
+request for pronouncement. Any member of GUIDO, or the current RM, may
+request changes to a PEP for any reason, provided they include some
+indication of what additional work is required to meet their
+expectations. See later sections for examples of expected reasons.
 
-When all members of GUIDO indicate that they have no concerns with a
-PEP, it is formally accepted. When one or more members of GUIDO fail
-to respond in a reasonable time, the President of GUIDO may choose to
-interpret that as implied approval. Failure of the President to
-respond should be handled using a vote of no confidence.
+When all members of GUIDO and the RM indicate that they have no
+concerns with a PEP, it is formally accepted. When one or more members
+of GUIDO fail to respond in a reasonable time, the President of GUIDO
+may choose to interpret that as implied approval. Failure of the
+President to respond should be handled using a vote of no confidence.
 
 Election terms
 --------------
@@ -219,18 +237,90 @@ should allocate votes on this basis.
 Scenario 1 - The Case of the Vague PEP
 --------------------------------------
 
-TODO
+Often in the past, initial proposals have lacked sufficient detail to
+be implementable by anyone other than the proposer. To avoid this,
+GUIDO should read proposals "fresh" when submitted, and without
+inferring or using any implied context. Then, when an aspect of a PEP
+is not clear, GUIDO can reject the proposal and request
+clarifications.
+
+Since the proposal is rejected, it must be modified and resubmitted in
+order to be reviewed again. GUIDO will determine how much guidance to
+provide when rejecting the PEP, as that will affect how many times it
+will likely be resubmitted (and hence affect GUIDO's own workload).
+This ensures that the final PEP text stands alone with all required
+information.
 
 Scenario 2 - The Case of the Endless Discussion
 -----------------------------------------------
 
-TODO
+From time to time, a discussion between Python contributors may seem
+to be no longer providing value. For example, when a large number of
+emails are repeating points that have already been dealt with, or are
+actively hostile towards others, there is no point continuing the
+"discussion".
+
+When such a discussion is occurring on python-committers as part of a
+request for pronouncement, a member of GUIDO should simply declare the
+thread over by rejecting the proposal. In most known cases, discussion
+of this sort indicates that not all concerns have been sufficiently
+addressed in the proposal and the author may need to enhance some
+sections.
+
+Alternatively, and in the absence of any rejection from the other
+members of GUIDO, the President may declare the thread over by
+accepting the proposal. Ideally this would occur after directly
+confirming with the rest of GUIDO and the RM that there are no
+concerns among them.
+
+When such a discussion is occurring on another list, members of GUIDO
+should be viewed as respected voices similar to other core developers
+(particularly those core developers who are the named experts for the
+subject area). While none have specific authority to end a thread,
+preemptively stating an intent to block a proposal is a useful way to
+defuse potentially useless discussions. Members of GUIDO who
+voluntarily follow discussions other than on python-committers are
+allowed to suggest the proposer withdraw, but can only actually
+approve or reject a proposal that is formally submitted for
+pronouncement.
 
 Scenario 3 - The Case of the Unconsidered Users
 -----------------------------------------------
 
-TODO
+Some proposals in the past may be written up and submitted for
+pronouncement without considering the impact on particular groups of
+users. For example, a proposal that affects the dependencies required
+to use Python on various machines may have an adverse impact on some
+users, even if many are unaffected due to the dependencies being
+typically available by default.
 
+Where a proposal does not appear to consider all users, GUIDO might
+choose to use their judgement and past experience to determine that
+more users are affected by the change than described in the PEP, and
+request that the PEP also address these users. They should identify
+the group of users clearly enough that the proposer is able to also
+identify these users, and either clarify how they were addressed, or
+made amendments to the PEP to explicitly address them. (Note that this
+does not involve evaluating the usefulness of the feature to various
+user groups, but simply whether the PEP indicates that the usefulness
+of the feature has been evaluated.)
+
+Where a proposal appears to have used flawed logic or incorrect data
+to come to a certain conclusion, GUIDO might choose to use other
+sources of information (such as the prior discussion or a submission
+from other core developers) to request reconsideration of certain
+points. The proposer does not necessarily need to use the exact
+information obtained by GUIDO to update their proposal, provided that
+whatever amendments they make are satisfactory to GUIDO. For example,
+a PEP may indicate that 30% of users would be affected, while GUIDO
+may argue that 70% of users are affected. A successful amendment may
+include a different but more reliable percentage, or may be rewritten
+to no longer depend on the number of affected users.
+
+References
+==========
+
+.. [1] The Spanish Inquisition, `<https://youtu.be/Ixgc_FGam3s>`_ 
 
 Copyright
 =========