PEP 1: Update for governance changes related to the steering council (#896)
This commit is contained in:
parent
9c2fbbd245
commit
83687f6ee3
156
pep-0001.txt
156
pep-0001.txt
|
@ -29,6 +29,19 @@ repository, their revision history is the historical record of the
|
|||
feature proposal [1]_.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
PEP Audience
|
||||
============
|
||||
|
||||
The typical primary audience for PEPs are the core developers of the CPython
|
||||
reference interpreter and their elected Steering Council, as well as developers
|
||||
of other implementations of the Python language specification.
|
||||
|
||||
However, other parts of the Python community may also choose to use the process
|
||||
(particularly for Informational PEPs) to document expected API conventions and
|
||||
to manage complex design coordination problems that require collaboration across
|
||||
multiple projects.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
PEP Types
|
||||
=========
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -62,16 +75,30 @@ There are three kinds of PEP:
|
|||
PEP Workflow
|
||||
============
|
||||
|
||||
Python's Steering Council
|
||||
-------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
There are several references in this PEP to the "Steering Council" or "Council".
|
||||
This refers to the current members of the elected Steering Council described
|
||||
in PEP 13 [5]_, in their role as the final authorities on whether or not PEPs
|
||||
will be accepted or rejected.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Python's Core Developers
|
||||
------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
There are several references in this PEP to "core developers". This refers to
|
||||
the currently active Python core team members described in PEP 13 [5]_.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Python's BDFL
|
||||
-------------
|
||||
|
||||
There are several references in this PEP to the "BDFL". This acronym stands
|
||||
for "Benevolent Dictator for Life" and refers to Guido van Rossum, the
|
||||
original creator of, and the final design authority for, the Python
|
||||
programming language. (**Note:** since Guido's withdrawal as BDFL,
|
||||
this position is vacant. See PEP 8000 for how the community plans to
|
||||
fill the vacancy.)
|
||||
This PEP still uses the title "BDFL-Delegate" for PEP decision makers. This is
|
||||
a historical reference to Python's previous governance model, where all design
|
||||
authority ultimately derived from Guido van Rossum, the original creator of the
|
||||
Python programming language. By contrast, the Steering Council's design
|
||||
authority derives from their election by the currently active core developers.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
PEP Editors
|
||||
|
@ -164,7 +191,7 @@ The standard PEP workflow is:
|
|||
* It sound and complete. The ideas must make technical sense. The
|
||||
editors do not consider whether they seem likely to be accepted.
|
||||
* The title accurately describes the content.
|
||||
* The PEP's language (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc.)
|
||||
* The PEP's language (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc.)
|
||||
and code style (examples should match PEP 8 & PEP 7) should be
|
||||
correct and conformant. The PEP will be checked for formatting
|
||||
(plain text or reStructuredText) by Travis CI, and will not be
|
||||
|
@ -185,11 +212,11 @@ Once the review process is complete, and the PEP editors approve it (note that
|
|||
this is *not* the same as accepting your PEP!), they will squash commit your
|
||||
pull request onto master.
|
||||
|
||||
The PEP editors 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 can be consulted during the approval
|
||||
phase, and is the final arbiter of the draft's PEP-ability.
|
||||
The PEP editors will not unreasonably deny publication of 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 Steering Council can be consulted
|
||||
during the approval phase, and are the final arbiter of a draft's PEP-ability.
|
||||
|
||||
Developers with git push privileges for the `PEP repository`_ may claim PEP
|
||||
numbers directly by creating and committing a new PEP. When doing so, the
|
||||
|
@ -229,45 +256,71 @@ PEP Review & Resolution
|
|||
-----------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Once the authors have completed a PEP, they may request a review for
|
||||
style and consistency from the PEP editors. However, the content and
|
||||
final acceptance of the PEP must be requested of the BDFL, usually via
|
||||
an email to the python-dev mailing list. 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
|
||||
predetermined 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.
|
||||
style and consistency from the PEP editors.
|
||||
|
||||
The final authority for PEP approval is the BDFL. However, whenever a new
|
||||
PEP is put forward, any core developer that believes they are suitably
|
||||
However, content review and final acceptance of the PEP must be requested of the
|
||||
core developers, usually via an email to the python-dev mailing list.
|
||||
|
||||
To expedite the process in selected cases (e.g. when a change is clearly
|
||||
beneficial and ready to be accepted, but the PEP hasn't been formally submitted
|
||||
for review yet), the Steering Council may also initiate a PEP review, first
|
||||
notifying the PEP author(s) and giving them a chance to make revisions.
|
||||
|
||||
The final authority for PEP approval is the Steering Council. However, whenever
|
||||
a new PEP is put forward, any core developer that believes they are suitably
|
||||
experienced to make the final decision on that PEP may offer to serve as
|
||||
the BDFL's delegate (or "PEP czar") for that PEP. If their self-nomination
|
||||
is accepted by the other core developers and the BDFL, then they will have
|
||||
the authority to approve (or reject) that PEP. This process happens most
|
||||
frequently with PEPs where the BDFL has granted in principle approval for
|
||||
*something* to be done, but there are details that need to be worked out
|
||||
before the PEP can be accepted.
|
||||
the BDFL-Delegate for that PEP, and they will then have the authority to approve
|
||||
(or reject) that PEP. Individuals taking on this responsibility are free to seek
|
||||
additional guidance from the Steering Council at any time, and are also expected
|
||||
to take the advice and perspectives of other core developers into account.
|
||||
|
||||
If the final decision on a PEP is to be made by a delegate rather than
|
||||
directly by the BDFL, this will be recorded by including the
|
||||
"BDFL-Delegate" header in the PEP.
|
||||
The designated decision maker for each PEP is recorded in the "BDFL-Delegate"
|
||||
header in the PEP.
|
||||
|
||||
PEP review and resolution may also occur on a list other than python-dev
|
||||
(for example, distutils-sig for packaging related PEPs that don't
|
||||
immediately affect the standard library). In this case, the "Discussions-To"
|
||||
heading in the PEP will identify the appropriate alternative list where
|
||||
discussion, review and pronouncement on the PEP will occur.
|
||||
Such self-nominations are accepted by default, but may be explicitly declined by
|
||||
the Steering Council. Possible reasons for the Steering Council declining a
|
||||
self-nomination as BDFL-Delegate include, but are not limited to, perceptions of
|
||||
a potential conflict of interest (e.g. working for the same organisation as the
|
||||
PEP submitter), or simply considering another potential BDFL-Delegate to be
|
||||
more appropriate. If core developers (or other community members) have concerns
|
||||
regarding the suitability of a BDFL-Delegate for any given PEP, they may ask
|
||||
the Steering Council to review the delegation.
|
||||
|
||||
If no volunteer steps forward, then the Steering Council will approach core
|
||||
developers (and potentially other Python community members) with relevant
|
||||
expertise, in an attempt to identify a candidate that is willing to serve as
|
||||
BDFL-Delegate for that PEP. If no suitable candidate can be found, then the
|
||||
PEP will be marked as Deferred until one is available.
|
||||
|
||||
Previously appointed BDFL-Delegates may choose to step down, or be asked to step
|
||||
down by the Council, in which case a new BDFL-Delegate will be appointed in the
|
||||
same manner as for a new PEP (including deferral of the PEP if no suitable
|
||||
replacement can be found). In the event that a BDFL-Delegate is asked to step
|
||||
down, this will overrule any prior acceptance or rejection of the PEP, and it
|
||||
will revert to Draft status.
|
||||
|
||||
With the approval of the Steering Council, PEP review and resolution may also
|
||||
occur on a list other than python-dev (for example, distutils-sig for packaging
|
||||
related PEPs that don't immediately affect the standard library). In these
|
||||
cases, the "Discussions-To" heading in the PEP will identify the appropriate
|
||||
alternative list where discussion, review and pronouncement on the PEP will
|
||||
occur.
|
||||
|
||||
When such standing delegations are put in place, the Steering Council will
|
||||
maintain sufficient public records to allow subsequent Councils, the core
|
||||
developers, and the wider Python community to understand the delegations that
|
||||
currently exist, why they were put in place, and the circumstances under which
|
||||
they may no longer be needed.
|
||||
|
||||
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 [2]_ for
|
||||
standard library module acceptance criteria.
|
||||
"pythonic" in order to be accepted by the Steering Council. (However,
|
||||
"pythonic" is an imprecise term; it may be defined as whatever is acceptable to
|
||||
the Steering Council. This logic is intentionally circular.) See PEP 2 [2]_
|
||||
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 incorporated
|
||||
|
@ -421,7 +474,7 @@ ReStructuredText_ allows for rich markup that is still quite easy to
|
|||
read, but also results in good-looking and functional HTML. PEP 12
|
||||
contains instructions and a template [4]_ for reStructuredText PEPs.
|
||||
|
||||
The PEP text files are automatically converted to HTML [5]_ for easier
|
||||
The PEP text files are automatically converted to HTML [6]_ for easier
|
||||
`online reading <https://www.python.org/dev/peps/>`__.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -469,10 +522,10 @@ following RFC 2822 continuation line conventions. Note that personal
|
|||
email addresses in PEPs will be obscured as a defense against spam
|
||||
harvesters.
|
||||
|
||||
The BDFL-Delegate field is used to record cases where the final decision to
|
||||
approve or reject a PEP rests with someone other than the BDFL. (The
|
||||
delegate's email address is currently omitted due to a limitation in the
|
||||
email address masking for reStructuredText PEPs)
|
||||
The BDFL-Delegate field is used to record the individual appointed by the
|
||||
Steering Council to make the final decision on whether or not to approve or
|
||||
reject a PEP. (The delegate's email address is currently omitted due to a
|
||||
limitation in the email address masking for reStructuredText PEPs)
|
||||
|
||||
*Note: The Resolution header is required for Standards Track PEPs
|
||||
only. It contains a URL that should point to an email message or
|
||||
|
@ -666,16 +719,19 @@ References and Footnotes
|
|||
for retrieving older revisions, and can also be browsed via HTTP here:
|
||||
https://github.com/python/peps
|
||||
|
||||
.. [2] PEP 2, Procedure for Adding New Modules, Faassen
|
||||
.. [2] PEP 2, Procedure for Adding New Modules
|
||||
(http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0002)
|
||||
|
||||
.. [3] PEP 9, Sample Plaintext PEP Template, Warsaw
|
||||
.. [3] PEP 9, Sample Plaintext PEP Template
|
||||
(http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0009)
|
||||
|
||||
.. [4] PEP 12, Sample reStructuredText PEP Template, Goodger, Warsaw
|
||||
.. [4] PEP 12, Sample reStructuredText PEP Template
|
||||
(http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0012)
|
||||
|
||||
.. [5] More details on the PEP rendering and publication process can be found
|
||||
.. [5] PEP 13, Python Language Governance
|
||||
(http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0013)
|
||||
|
||||
.. [6] More details on the PEP rendering and publication process can be found
|
||||
in the PEPs repo README at
|
||||
https://github.com/python/peps/blob/master/README.rst
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue