Closes#788.
Reference: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2018-September/053586.html
The criteria are taken from section "PEP Editor Responsibilities & Workflow" and edited to reflect the submitter's viewpoint.
Collateral damage: The format of the section was changed from bullet points without interpoint vertical whitespace to insert whitespace because rstpep2html doesn't like the more compact formatting I tried. A period was used to terminate the last bullet point.
This adds an explicit "Provisional" status for PEPs, making
it easier to track which PEPs are truly Final, and which
are pending further further public feedback based on
their initially published reference implementations.
This removes any reference to the technical details of online PEP
publication from PEP 1, replacing it with a reference to the
README in the PEP repository.
It also updates the README with relevant cross-references to the
pythondotorg project (based on some process pointers provided by
Mariatta Wijaya).
Resolves GH-575.
- some interoperability specifications (e.g. the package index
download API) will never have a standard library implementation
- auxiliary files can go in a subdirectory
- PEP issues should be reported against the GitHub repo rather than
bugs.python.org
If R. David Murray's first initial is not escaped, it is interpreted as
the alphabetic ordinal in an enumerated list and rendered as
"18. David Murray".
These fields were maintained by the version control system, and this
no longer happens with git. They are already no longer displayed in
the published versions of the pages.
- identify the current PEP editors and clarify their role
- separate out PEP administrative email from design discussion
- reference implementations typically co-evolve with their PEP
- it's OK to get a PEP number before a PEP is ready for python-dev
- eliminate most of the ambiguous 'we' references
(Initial patch by Chris Jerdonek)
Including the delegate's email address would be nice, but the PEP writer lives in docutils upstream rather than our PEPs repo and I'm not updating docutils just to mask an additional field, nor am I inclined to figure out how to move the writer definition downstream where it belongs