I close DIP27. I won't be pursuing DIPs anymore

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On 10/18/2016 02:40 AM, David Soria Parra wrote:
> On Monday, 17 October 2016 at 21:52:32 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Thanks, David. Hope you're doing well! I was curious about one thing -
>> is there some scrutiny going into the PIPs before Guido reviews them?
>> Right now we seem to have a scalability issue; some of the DIPs we
>> have seem to be no more than a couple of hours of work from the
>> submitters. Writing a good review for a submission that needs a lot of
>> improvement is in many ways more difficult than reviewing a
>> well-argued DIP.
>>
>> I was therefore wondering - given Python's popularity - whether there
>> is some filtering of PIPs prior to them being reviewed by Guido.
> 
> PEPs (sorry I totally misspelled that before) have a editors who are
> responsible for scrutinizing the PEP before and as far as I understand
> are the ones who can request review from the BDFL (Guido), who either
> takes the final decision or delegates it (e.g. in cases were someone is
> better suited in the area to make the call). Editors are trusted core
> committers that are sponsoring an improvement.
> 
> The process is outline in great detail at
> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/#pep-workflow and I recommend
> reading it. Maybe we get some good ideas on how to create a process that
> is scalable and results in the high quality standards we have but are
> more suited towards the smaller community we are.
> 
> We should start small and see how we find something that Walter, you and
> contributors feel good about and improve from there:
> 
> might suit our needs.

But this is pretty much the process we have right now! Differences I can
see:

- currently I am the only person acting as a preliminary "editor"
- I don't hold right to reject anything, only to request more
information/improvements
- it features decision delegates to someone else but BDFL is certain cases
- transition between various stages is more formally defined

I doubt anyone complaining about existing DIP process would have a
slightest chance to get a PEP of similar quality and style accepted as a
draft.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20161020/1918a67d/attachment.sig>