Avoid 'I' now there's more than one author. Other minor nits.

pep-0308.txt

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ PEP: 308
 Title: If-then-else expression
 Version: $Revision$
 Last-Modified: $Date$
-Author: Guido van Rossum and Raymond D. Hettinger
+Author: Guido van Rossum, Raymond D. Hettinger
 Status: Draft
 Type: Standards Track
 Content-Type: text/plain
@@ -18,9 +18,10 @@ Introduction
     this PEP is approved with a clear majority, it will be implemented
     in Python 2.4.  If not, the PEP will be augmented with a summary
     of the reasons for rejection and the subject better not come up
-    again.  While I am the author of this PEP, I am neither in favor
-    nor against this proposal; it is up to the community to decide.
-    If the community can't decide, I'll reject the PEP.
+    again.  While the BDFL is co-author of this PEP, he is neither in
+    favor nor against this proposal; it is up to the community to
+    decide.  If the community can't decide, the BDFL will reject the
+    PEP.
 
     After unprecedented community response (very good arguments were
     made both pro and con) this PEP has been revised with the help of
@@ -211,7 +212,7 @@ Short-Circuit Behavior
     3. split() is only valid for strings and readlines() is only
        valid for file objects.
 
-    Supporters of a cond() function point-out that the need for
+    Supporters of a cond() function point out that the need for
     short-circuit evaluation is rare.  Scanning through existing code
     directories, they found that if/else did not occur often; and of
     those only a few contained expressions that could be helped by