Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [ATTENTION PLEASE] standards process

[David Allouche]

On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 14:27 -0400, James Blackwell wrote:
> Rather than go back and forth about whether this process is the same or
> different from that process, why don't we discuss the merits and
> drawbacks of having a (any) process first. 

I think that's a very good idea.

      * That would help maintain the structure and quality of the
        technical discussion, helping to make a better use of
        everybody's email bandwidth, and especially Tom's. 
      * That would produce a trail of documentation describing the state
        of the collective mind. Such documentation would help avoid
        rehashing of old ideas, like support of extended attributes and
        the correct place and use of custom diff and merge tools.

I do not see any serious drawback if the editors participate in good
faith. Such a process would be effective at bogging down the resolution
of simple issues, but it needs not be used for everything. Quoting
PEP01:

        Small enhancements or patches often don't need a PEP and can be
        injected into the Python development work flow with a patch
        submission to the SourceForge patch manager [6] or feature
        request tracker [7].

While I am quoting... there is another part of PEP01 which echoes my
only contribution to the recent "encoding" thread:

        It is highly recommended that a single PEP contain a single key
        proposal or new idea. The more focused the PEP, the more
        successful it tends to be. The PEP editor reserves the right to
        reject PEP proposals if they appear too unfocused or too broad.
        If in doubt, split your PEP into several well-focused ones.

These quotations must not be interpreted as implying that PEP is a
better way of doing things than others. Even though I do think that the
Python community his handling its proposal process very well, it's not
yet time in the discussion to nail down the specifics.

These quotations are only meant as illustrations and sources of
inspiration, and the relative verbosity of PEP01 makes it a good source.

-- 
                                                            -- ddaa